The Killing of Charles Wesco and How the US Avoided (and Still Avoids) Sanctioning Cameroon
By Hans Ngala
This week marks exactly seven years since 44-year-old American Baptist missionary, Charles Truman Wesco was killed in crossfire between soldiers and armed separatists in Bamenda. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, both sides blamed each other and our colleague, Mimi Mefo was arrested in relation to her reporting on the killing.
At the time, Reuters reported that “The American missionary was traveling in a vehicle with his wife, one of his children and another missionary, heading toward the town of Bamenda, when a soldier shot him several times in the head, Williams (his sister) said by phone from the United States”
The US government offered a very measured statement that failed to apportion blame on any party and simply said they were offering assistance to the family of the deceased.
The events at the time, unfolded in circumstances that are very similar to today’s circumstances. The Anglophone Crisis was in its early years and Biya had just been re-elected to begin his seventh term that year in an election which saw little participation in Anglophone regions. The US government’s response at the time was likely tepid because US authorities realized that a harsher response risked inflaming passions in an already-tense country, even further.
In 2025, the US government has been experiencing a shutdown for weeks as of the time of writing this, making it hard for an official US government response to be relayed from the US Embassy in Yaounde.
However, at 92 and in another seven-year mandate that could see him rule until he is nearly 100, trusted partner countries like the US government can no longer afford to be silent on Biya’s gross abuse of democratic institutions. He has muzzled the press, imprisoned opposition party leaders and renders no account to citizens for his actions. Some partner Western countries like Canada and the EU have issued statements calling for calm in the post-electoral clashes that have followed but this is not enough. At this point, it is obvious that Biya’s rule is an assault on democracy even though he tries to sell it as actual democracy.
That major cities have been going up in flames, protesting his now-disputed “victory” is not something that can simply be swept under the carpet. Biya carries on with his actions like this because the international community blesses him all the time and welcomes him. If the AU, other presidents from across the continent and regional African blocs are patting him on the back while respected defenders of democracy like the US and UK are simply sitting on the fence, Biya essentially carries on with his abuse of democracy and democratic institutions. That Biya left for a private stay in Switzerland just three weeks to election day is testament of this impunity which he has come to enjoy during his decades-long rule. Swiss authorities allow him to spend hundreds of thousands of Cameroonians’ taxpayer money in their country, enriching businesses there, while impoverishing ordinary Cameroonians who have no jobs, water, roads or access to proper healthcare.
Biya enjoys a life of comfort and luxury at the expense of Cameroonians who foot his bills and yet he turns around and imprisons those who dare question any aspect of his leadership, forcing himself to be liked at the barrel of a gun. Something has to change for him to realize that such abuses are wrong and that his governance needs to be more transparent.
Imposing targeted sanctions on Biya and his close inner circle would send a powerful signal that the era of blank-cheque diplomacy is over. For decades, the Cameroonian president has relied on his international legitimacy—particularly from Western partners—to shield himself from consequences, even as his government erodes democratic norms at home. Sanctions would disrupt that protective bubble. By restricting travel, freezing overseas assets, and limiting access to international financial systems, the international community would hit the regime where it feels most vulnerable: its comfort, mobility, and ability to profit from the state.
Such measures would also show ordinary Cameroonians that the world is not indifferent to their suffering. When powerful figures who have benefited from corruption and repression begin facing personal consequences, it reshapes the political landscape. Sanctions do not magically produce democracy, but they can weaken the networks of patronage that sustain authoritarian systems. They also embolden civil society, opposition groups, and reform-minded insiders who often feel suffocated by the regime’s impunity.
Moreover, targeted sanctions create a deterrent effect across the continent. Other long-standing rulers who manipulate elections or use state violence to silence critics would see that international partnerships are not unconditional. For Biya specifically, it could mark the beginning of meaningful pressure—pressure strong enough to force transparency, human-rights reforms, and genuine political dialogue.
