Thanks to Google Translate, this article is available in English:

One issue is that a scammer from Cameroon did a rug pull with his Simbcoin and is reported to be associated with the President of the Assembly which drafted the law.

Bitcoin does not give any advantage to scammers or anyone else, but the argument is that the law does not define "cryptocurrency", and that the law requires that payment made in "cryptocurrency" must be accepted. That's a valid argument. That is, I would presume, up to the regulator created by this law to determine the details on that.

While El Salvador has the same type of law, merchants who don't have the technology to accept cryptocurrency are not required to accept cryptocurrency.

There's a comment about the central bank having the mandate to convert between the CFA franc (XAF) and "cryptocurrency", and that adding risk to the central bank. Again, a fair point. If the central bank must hold an inventory of bitcoin (or other coins, like stablecoins, or maybe even coins more volatile than bitcoin even) then it does cause exposure to exchange rate volatility.

There are hedging methods available to lessen risk so that the central bank doesn't need to have much exposure whatsoever to exchange rate fluctuations. This doesn't even need to involve the central bank, private exchanges could accommodate all currency exchange. I suspect the central bank is inserted in the middle for some specific reason (e.g., to acquire bitcoin for the government of the country?)

The third argument is about how bitcoin is not easily mined in the country, due to an unreliable electric grid and limited generation capacity. Of course, there is no requirement that any bitcoin mining occurs within the country. Running a bitcoin node requires no significant amount of electricity, and node devices can run on battery during power disruptions even.

And the last argument states that a Russian security organization is active in the country, and beyond that, bitcoin enables continued trade with Russia since it can route around the sanctions on Russia. That's absolutely true. Not sure why that would be a reason the law that was passed should be revised or reversed.

So, overall, there's very little to these arguments -- at least not something that can't be fixed by getting a bit more specificity in the regulations.