Rejoinder:“CPDM Youth Protest Against Buea Rural MP”

We the Bureau of the Executive of the three wings of the CPDM Party under the Leadership of the Section President, Mr. Arthur Ekeke Lysinge wish to express our total disappointment with the Article that appeared on your Newspaper No. 0763 of Friday, May 12, 2006 brandishing placards with anti party slogans against the party and Hon. Lifaka Emilia.

Whatever the intention of your reporter Mr. Pegue Manga Fidelis, we wish to reiterate that, as a party we still remain very strong and united and stand firmly behind our Member of Parliament Hon. MONJOWA LIFAKA Emilia as she has distinguished herself by activities within the party, the Parliament and the Judicious use of her Micro Project Grants as seen in the many projects she carried out in a cross section of heir Constituency.

We consider that Article as a plot by a few individuals to discredit the leadership of the party in Fako III and our MP in particular. We also do advise that your reporter should always give a balanced report when ext he is sent to cover our Party activities.
This letter should be published in its entirety in your newspaper.
Signed:

Mr. Arthur Ekeke Lysinge
CPDM Section President
FAKO III Buea

Madam Enanga Ndando Ruth
WCPDM Section President
FAKO III Buea

Mr. Emmauel Motombi Mbome
YCPDM Section President
FAKO III Buea

Editor’s Note

This is a classic case of blaming the messenger for the bad news. Our reporter tried, as usual, tried to be balanced but the Hon. Lady declined talking to him. There might, as you say, be a "plot by a few individuals to discredit the leadership of the Party in FAKO and our MP in particular."

Let us state, here, categorically, that we are not party to such a plot and we did not concoct the placards. Our reporter will continue, as in the past, to impartially report on events not only about your party, but about all other parties.

One thing we don't appreciate: your arrogance to give us lessons on journalistic performance. Above all, you sound so disdainful: "This letter should be published in its entirety in your Newspaper. There are echoes of the Soviet era in such sentences.
Editor

Comments

[Samah A-M]

well done EDITOR. stupid scroundrels in the name of local subsection Presidents.

[Che Michael]

Whatever the intention of your reporter Mr. Pegue Manga Fidelis, we wish to reiterate that, as a party we still remain very strong and united and stand firmly behind our Member of Parliament Hon. MONJOWA LIFAKA Emilia as she has distinguished herself by activities within the party, the Parliament and the Judicious use of her Micro Project Grants. If The judicious use of Micro-project grants is the cows and rice that Lifaka took to Bova some four years ago, then it is a disgrace to all the CPDM section presidents. The Post reporter did not carry placards the youths protested against the failure of the MP to deliver, period.

[Che Michael]

"Whatever the intention of your reporter Mr. Pegue Manga Fidelis, we wish to reiterate that, as a party we still remain very strong and united and stand firmly behind our Member of Parliament Hon. MONJOWA LIFAKA Emilia as she has distinguished herself by activities within the party, the Parliament and the Judicious use of her Micro Project Grants." If The judicious use of Micro-project grants is the cows and rice that Lifaka took to Bova some four years ago, then it is a disgrace to all the CPDM section presidents. The Post reporter did not carry placards the youths protested against the failure of the MP to deliver, period.

[Chim]

Mr Pegue Manga Fidelis, I have personally known for a very long time as a balance reporter. Mr Ekeke Lysingue is only trying to sound his usual trumpet.The interview of Hon Lifaka is crystal clear for all and sundry to realize how she became a member of Parliement.Mr Ekeke has only helped to expose himself and the unothodox methodes he used during elections. These youths, their subsection presidents and every other person out there is unhappy with the entire setup.
The Post newspaper remains the only voice of the voiceless this side of mungo.GOD SAVE US
Emmanuel Chim

[Christiana]

Pegue Manga thank you for that article.So please do not relent in your efforts.Go ahead and deliver the goods.We need nothing but balanced reports like the one you just did on the Buea Rural MP.Out here we want to know what's going on in our country.
Once kudos Mr Pegue Manga

[bangwa_sense]

IN RESPONSE TO HON. FOJU

INTRODUCTION:

An interview of Hon. Foju was posted on Lecanet by Mr.
Asong Ndifor. I do not intend to address his arrogant
utterances about the SDF. After all, in multiparty
politics, this type of shadow boxing is allowed. All
that can be said here is that the SDF remains a
formidable political force capable of winning power in
Cameroon with the advent of a credible independent
electoral commission. His description of former SDF
militants as “the former Lebialem SDF” is a strategy
of opinion manipulation that is futile because it
takes the wisdom of the people for granted. What I
think there is consensus about now is that the current
leadership of the SDF has failed and continues to dim
the prospect of the future triumph of the party, with
the advent of free and fair elections. The quarrel in
the SDF is neither linked to xenophobia nor to
north/south complexes; it is linked to this leadership
failure. Therefore, I will dwell in this reaction only
on substantive issues raised by Hon. Foju. I ask your
indulgence for the length of the reaction.

HON FOJU THE MAN:

I have known Hon Foju since 1964 when I entered Form 1
in St. Joseph’s College, Sasse and met him in Form 4.
Our paths diverted after Sasse, but we met again in
Yaounde in 1980 where we have both elected residence
since then. I know him to be an introvert by nature.
He is also not very sociable. When he elected to
become an MP in 2002, I wondered how he would fit in
the job. If you ask me today whether my fear was
justified, I would say yes. With my little experience
in party politics, I know that people of such mould
are always easily outsmarted and heckled to silence in
the rough and tumble of politics. This is why in spite
of the enormous sacrifices of the Lebialem people,
Hon. Foju and his "elite" have continued to allow the
CPDM barons of the South West Province to shout them
down as people from an opposition Division!

RIVAL PRSP?

Hon Foju says that “One would have expected the party
(the SDF) to have a rival poverty alleviation strategy
paper, an alternative budget more sensitive to the
needs of the people”. He may be aware that poverty,
the poor and poverty alleviation have always been the
domain of socialist and social/democratic parties. The
CPDM is not one of these; the SDF is. To talk of an
alternative poverty reduction strategy paper that is
more sensitive to the needs of the people is either
due to ignorance or bad faith. The source of the
strategy paper that exists now, which he seems to be
claiming for the CPDM, will bear me out on this.

It will be recalled that in the late 80s, the
implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme
(SAP) only led to increased debt and poverty. It was
to remedy this that the Bretton Woods Institutions
jointly launched what is known today as the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC-I) in 1996,
with the claimed basic principle being to help the
beneficiary countries to free themselves from the
vicious cycle of external debt. The savings derived
from the programme are supposed to be used in
programmes that reduce poverty. To qualify for the
programme Cameroon had to respect the conditionality
of the Bretton Wood Institutions by all means.
Normally the institutions impose a strict economy
stabilisation programme and reforms. These have to be
followed strictly during the 3 years preceding the
decision point (point of acceptance of a country in
the HIPC-I club); and pursued for 2 - 3 years after
the decision point, in order to reach the completion
point. To reach the decision point (that is qualify
for the programme), the country had to present a
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), which, to the
Bretton Woods Institutions, is a global, coherent,
viable and participatory development strategy. This
paper was drawn up in close collaboration with the
World Bank, the IMF and other multilateral
institutions and donors. Of course, the participation
of civil society and a broad base of the population
(all stakeholders!!) was ensured. To prepare and
present the PRSP, it cost the Bretton Woods
Institutions and other donors close to 1 billion FCFA
to go through the following stages:
1) 17 - 20 Jan 2000: Seminar in Kribi with various
stakeholders as participants;
2) March 2000: Mission by teams to the field to
identify discussion groups (all stakeholders!!);
3) April 2000: Consultation with the identified
groups in all ten provinces (all 58 Divisions);
4) May 2000: Analysis and validation of results in
Yaounde;
5) June 2000: Seminar to draw up interim PRSP
moderated by representatives of the Bretton Wood
Institutions.

The PRSP was then presented to the Bretton Woods
Institutions; Cameroon was admitted to the decision
point in October 2000. Within this background, whose
PRSP is Hon Foju talking about? The rival one should
be produced for whom? Of course the fear of the
intellectual community in Africa, that this other idol
of the Bretton Woods Institutions will not work, is
common knowledge.

RIVAL BUDGET?

As for the "rival budget" Hon Foju talks about, I
guess he means rival to the State Budget.
As an MP, I guess he knows how a state budget is
adopted. He knows that there are usually fireworks in
Parliament, with MPs of different political parties
suggesting profound amendments to give the budget
different orientations as they see fit. The fact that
the monolithic-prone CPDM always ensures that most of
these amendments are rejected is probably a reflection
of how much the CPDM is intent on fighting poverty!

WHITHER THE PRSP?

Let it be clear that many Africans do not believe that
the HIPC-I will lead to poverty reduction. There is no
industrialisation strategy factored into the
programme. There is no strategy to use some of the
funds to defray custom duty on some heavy machines and
electronic equipment, needed to enhance the supply
side of the economy. There is no effort to ensure the
emergence of powerful local construction firms that
can rival foreign firms that are well placed to win
all the juicy construction contracts and siphon most
of these funds back to their countries. A clear
example is the reinforced contracting conditions
published by the French Development Agency, AFD last
week, in readiness for the use of the 700 billion FCFA
France will give Cameroon under their “c2d” following
the reaching of the completion point. Maybe Hon. Foju,
in his drive for “unity”, should get all those little
contractors in Lebialem together and urge them to pool
resources and form one strong public works firm that
can employ large numbers and shed sloppiness in the
execution of contracts in Lebialem!

CPDM: PARTY OF DEMOCRATS?

Hon Foju tells us that “While the CPDM is opening up
and becoming more democratic by the day, the SDF is
doing the reverse, showing a lot of intolerance and
the door to true democrats”. I can only hope that Hon.
Foju read the newspapers in Cameroon last week. He
would have realised that the CPDM has become more
democratic by suspending and punishing its militants
for organising a public demonstration against the
excesses of the government delegate and the
manipulations of the leadership of the CPDM in
Bafoussam! This is obviously a good way of opening
up!! And since he is treating the CPDM and government
as the same lot, where do we place the undemocratic
spirit of the government? As recently as yesterday,
they prevented the Episcopal Council of Cameroon from
presenting to the public their proposed amendments to
the present electoral laws in Cameroon! The press
conference was violently dispersed by the security
forces. Is this a good omen for the much talked about
“upcoming” independent electoral commission?

WARPED CONCEPT OF UNITY:

Our honourable informs us that “my hierarchies (modern
and traditional, official and unofficial) who expected
and instructed me to work at reconciling and reuniting
the Lebialem family, so we could take our rightful
place in the South West province” In other words,
Lebialem which used to triumph in Southern Cameroons
multiparty politics, can only be considered today if
it has only one party, the CPDM? As I have already
said, this is an aberration which has been caused by
the weakness of our representation in what they call
“njangi” house. Mr. Achidi Achu was appointed Prime
Minister when all of the North West Province,
including his native Santa was SDF. Mr. Peter Mafany
Musonge was appointed PM when all of Fako was under
SDF control (Buea, Limbe, Tiko and Muyuka Councils,
plus 2 of 4 Parliamentary seats). So why must Lebialem
be 100% CPDM before it can have its rightful place in
the South West Province? With all Councils in Lebialem
and the lone parliamentary seat under CPDM control,
why do our own representatives allow Lebialem to be
called an opposition territory while other Divisions
are said to be CPDM fiefs? It can only be because our
own people in their “njangi” house have accepted to be
browbeaten to such a corner. This is why Hon Foju says
things like: “with the present dispensation, I see the
CPDM gaining strength in Lebialem Division”. And that
“because we are now reunited our score in favour of
the CPDM in future elections will be the best in the
South West, ushering in more appointments and fast
development...” This is the type of language fed to
him by barons of the CPDM in the South West Province.

He talks about the “Hard and sustained efforts of the
CPDM executive, and the “Foresight of Fons and elite
in getting me elected”. This is all misplaced language
that ignores the fact that we are dealing with complex
issues related to the intricacies of national politics
in our country. We are dealing with a situation
governed by what is most likely an inferiority
complex!! Good a thing he himself (for the first time)
is telling us how he got elected (or selected?).

ABSOLUTE TRUTH?

We are told that “I was and I am still convinced that
no Lebialem person knowing the absolute truth about
the present state of things in our country will vote
for the SDF, let alone be a card carrying member of
the party”. Aha! So SDF militants and sympathisers do
not know the absolute truth about Cameroon. This
absolute truth is probably that Lebialem should be
100% CPDM before it gets its rightful place in the
South West Province!

And he goes on: “When the critics say ‘in recent years
the government is paying more attention to Lebialem
needs’, they are saying in effect that the MP and his
team (elite in the civil service and the different sub
lobbies) are doing well.” Is it so? I challenge him
to bring out the budget heads for Lebialem in State
Budgets between say 1996 and 2006. Being the Secretary
of a Parliamentary Group, he will not have
difficulties in laying hands on all these Budgets. He
will easily understand that Lebialem has always
received some consideration. Unfortunately, most of
the budgeted projects have always been given to CPDM
militants without track records in contracts, and they
ended up putting up approximate structures and
pocketing much of the budgetary allocations! I think
what we need most is proper execution of budgetary
allocations for Lebialem, year after year! Sooner or
later, the infrastructures will stand out!!
Development Associations, including student
associations should make it their priority to ensure
that budgetary allocations for projects in their
Fondoms are well spent. It is possible to take
contractors who are suspected to have pocketed
contract money to court! Then party sycophants will
stop robbing us of our development money. I call on
Hon Foju to name the projects he has done with
micro-project money. Why does he shun the press and
prefer a homogenous Lebialem audience? If what he has
done convinces us, we shall praise him; if it does
not, we shall condemn him!

It should be known that Lebialem people are also
taxpayers, so they deserve what government gives them.
If Hon. Foju has “educated and informed” all the
people as he claims, this campaign to sell government
projects as compensation for support for the CPDM
should be a thing of the past.

HIPC-I: ETHICS, EQUITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Our Honourable should know that "in recent years"
HIPC-I funds are being heavily invested in the field
in the health, education and road infrastructure
sectors. He should note that ethics and equity are
fundamental resource management principles of the
entire HIPC-I in Cameroon. Resource tracking and
geographical distribution are taken very seriously.
There is no "njangi" about it, no party political
considerations, no embezzlement by favoured party
contractors. So “in recent years”, Lebialem, like all
Divisions in Cameroon are being attended to. There is
no need claiming any credit for these, except that
they coincide with his mandate in Parliament. It would
have been exactly the same if any other person were
there as MP and the HIPC-I was around. His talk about
new roads in upper Wabane is because he probably does
not know about the Cameroon Rural Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Strategy Paper (RRMRSP) adopted under
the HIPC-I on June 30, 2000.

OUR HUMAN RESOURCES?

We are told by Hon. Foju that “Our human resources are
entering the main stream. Although we may not yet have
a portfolio, there are one, possibly two persons of
ministerial rank, five of secretary general rank and
over one and a half dozens within the ‘directorial
brackets’. It has never been so good”. Well these
‘figures’ are attractive aren’t they? But why all the
approximation? How many posts of Minister and
"Ministerial rank" are there in Cameroon? How many do
we have? How many posts of Secretary General and "SG
rank" are there? How many do we have? And so on...! We
are interested in real posts, not equivalent
positions. This issue of equivalence gets us sick!!
The problem seems to be that the MP is looking at
these serious issues with the lens of a political
party militant. The bottom line for me is that I will
be happy if at the beginning of a school year I turn
up in a school with my child for admission and
discover that the Principal is from Lebialem. It will
not matter to me whether the principal is CPDM, SDF,
Catholic, Protestant, Moslem or atheist. What I am
sure about is that I will have his/her ear more than I
would if the person was of another origin. If Eto'o
Fils were a son of Lebialem, I am sure we can all
dream of one day having from him, development aid of
billions for the development of Lebialem. It would not
matter which party he militated in or voted for before
he left Cameroon to seek his glory abroad. By all this
I am asking the MP to change his strategies, change
the composition and strategising of his "sub-lobbies”,
encourage the de-politisation of traditional
institutions, stop viewing party politics as a source
of enmity and change his whole vision of politics in
order to really contribute to bringing prosperity to
our people.

For a long time now there have been calls for unity in
Lebialem. There have been calls for the formation of a
strong lobby for the Division. The fact that following
this "crossing over" palaver Hon. Foju is promising to
"build a very strong Lebialem lobby" and talking of
"newfound unity" implies that to him, to achieve
these, everybody should be in the same political
party. This narrow view of "unity" and "lobbies",
shared by most CPDM elite, has caused Lebialem a lot.
History informs us that in 1955 Hon. Martin Foju
refused to crossover to the KNDP, the party founded by
his political colleague, J.N. Foncha, although the
Catholic teachers and the Fon of Fontem gave Foncha
their full support. This did not prevent Hon. Foju
from continuing to have an influence on the
administration of the Fon of Fontem until his demise
in 1957 (see Atem: The Fontem Kingdom, 2000: 112
-113). Why does the son think that we can only have
"well meaning" Lebialem people in the CPDM? Why does
he think only monolithic lobbies can be effective? Why
does he give the impression that belonging to
different political parties breeds enmity?

CPDM: AMBITION TO BRING PROSPERITY?

The Honourable tells us that “Ours (i.e. the CPDM) is
a party of emerging democrats who have as ambition to
transform our nation into a truly prosperous entity.
Prosperity, we are sure, will come through hard work
in line with our philosophy of communal liberalism”.
Well, we have already described the failures of the
Biya regime during the quarter century he has been
President of our country. The consequence of that
failure is that we joined the HIPC-I and ceded the
management of the country to the Bretton Woods
Institutions and other multilateral institutions and
donors. Let me here situate events that are unfolding
in the country today.

Mr. Biya came to the helm of state in 1982, firmly
stating that the watchwords of his administration
would be rigour and moralisation. Indeed, in Cameroon
Tribune of 18 January 1983 he affirmed that: "the
moralisation of behaviour also means a permanent and
increased fight against the ills that disturb the
economic and moral health of society like laxity,
adventure, fraud, embezzlement, corruption,
favouritism, tribalism and arbitrary behaviour"
All this was followed for a very long time by silence
about these issues. Prompting from the press and the
active forces of the nation about corruption and
embezzlement of public funds meant nothing to him; he
asked for proof. The State Control Ministry sent files
upon files of embezzlers to the Presidency but there
was no action. Then suddenly pressure started mounting
on a regime that reached the decision point of the
HIPC-I since October 2000, and was struggling to reach
the completion point. 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006...pressure kept pilling and anxiety kept mounting
in Cameroon about the famous completion point. Then
time caught up with him!

Act 1: February 2006: America inaugurates new Embassy
building in Yaounde in presence of Mr. Biya. Assistant
Secretary of State Mrs Fraser makes a speech promising
US help in the fight against corruption. This is
followed by an audience granted the US Ambassador at
the Presidency. Ambassador on leaving audience repeats
the promise of Mrs. Fraser.
Act 2: Press circulates names of billionaires in
Cameroon.
Act 3: US Ambassador reacts. Says it is not enough to
dismiss embezzlers from their jobs. They should be
arrested and taken to court, and the stolen
goods/money recovered. The Dutch Ambassador (on behalf
of the EU) wades in to declare that to reach the
completion point Cameroon should bring embezzlers to
book; Cameroon should also start implementing Article
66 of the ten year old (1996) Constitution on the
declaration of assets.
Act 4: Feb 21 2006: Arrest of Ondo Ndong (FEICOM),
Gilles Roger Belinga (SIC), Joseph Edou (National
Building Insurance) and later, Siyam Siwe (former
Director of Ports, Minister of Water Resources).
Act 5: March 2006: Sending of bill on declaration of
assets to parliament, bill adopted. Creation by
presidential decree of many institutions to fight
corruption.
Act 6: April 2006: Cameroon reaches Completion point.
Act 7: 13 May 2006: President Biya grants audience to
American Ambassador; following audience, Ambassador
talks about completion point and how things will
continue from there. Later in the evening Paul Biya
addresses the nation and talks about Completion point
and how things will continue from there...

Is this the government (the party) that wants to bring
prosperity to our country being marched around and
forced to carry out government business? It should be
remembered that when Minister Mounchipou Saidou of PTT
was arrested long in the past for embezzling the
budget of that Ministry, Cameroonians asked for more
action. It is from within CPDM ranks that voices came
out warning that if the arrests continued, they would
lead to the collapse of the CPDM. With people
speculating that to do a thorough job of arresting
embezzlers, some 9000 people should be taken to jail,
is it not true that it will lead to the collapse of
the most corrupt entity (the CPDM) in the history of
Cameroon?

ETHICS OF JOURNALISM:

Hon. Foju ends by lavishing praise on the two spin
doctors he has recruited for himself, describing them
as elite who are “sacrificing” for the development of
the division. To Hon. Foju, a journalist who actively
campaigns for the CPDM, sings praises for the party
and openly calls on SDF militants to cross-over to the
CPDM is not taking sides? This must be a perverted
sense of justice, balance and sacrifice in journalism!
I am sure any journalist who writes in praise of the
SDF and in condemnation of the famous crossing-over
would be understood by Hon Foju to be taking sides.
Such journalists would easily be accused of being paid
to do such write-ups!

CONCLUSION:

A rigorous intellectual dispensation is required of
those who discuss poverty issues in Cameroon. The MP
should better tell his spin doctors that it is too
soon to see the SDF only in “pockets” in Lebialem! To
do so would be nothing short of wishful thinking and
an effort to take the Lebialem people for granted! In
future, the MP should weigh every of his utterances
very well when he goes to press. He should know that
of all the precious things we all have on earth,
Lebialem is one of them. It is dear to all of us.
Attributing love for it to a faction, as the MP tries
to do here is doing Lebialem a serious disservice. We
still have a long way to go!

Prof. T. Asonganyi
Yaounde.

[Legima Doh (LD)]

ANNEXATION OF THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS; THE 20TH MAY SIGNIFICANCE.
From the end of WW1 , the 2 Mandated territories , later UN Trust territories of British Cameroons and French Camerooun after WW2 existed as distinct territories of international concern .Governed by different Administering Authorities and distinct Trusteeship Agreements , treaties in their own rights ,British Cameroons and French Cameroun were equal under international instruments and were registered under category ’B’ of the Trust Territories .The British Southern Cameroons ,administered as part of Nigeria for convenience did not lose its distinct political and cultural identity and responding to UN Resolution 224(3) of 1948 Nigeria never attempted to annex ,assimilate and integrate the trust territory to become an integral part of Nigeria .In 1954 the British Southern Cameroons gained its autonomy .Through democratic elections ,it had its Premier as head of the executive and a House of Assembly .Brigadier Gibbons was its commissioner .In 1957 following a new constitution ,the British Southern Cameroons gained in institutional development as a House of Chiefs was created in addition to the existing House of Assembly .Note that it was in 1957 i.e. 3 years after the Southern Cameroons that the French Cameroun had self government .In 1958 the British Permanent Representative to the UN in defending the political and constitutional evolution of the British Southern Cameroons stated that the trust territory was on the same level of development and was in no way retarded and was thus ripe for Independence as was Nigeria .In preparation for the Independence of Nigeria and in defence of the distinct status of the British Southern Cameroons by UN Resolution 1352(XIV) of 16 Oct 1959,Southern Cameroons was separated from Nigeria , thus putting an end to the British institutionalised joint administration for convenience .By this act and within its international boundaries , British Southern Cameroons stood as a distinct state between its two immediate neighbours, Nigeria to the West and North and French Cameroun which became La Republique du Cameroun ,at independence on Jan 1,1960 to the East .On Oct 1 1960 the British SCs Constitution order in Council 1960 S.I. 1960 No.1654 was adopted by parliament .To our people ,this was seen as the constitution to lead the trust territory to sovereign independence in conformity with Art. 76 b of the UN charter which in respect of the ‘sacred trust’ it was the duty of the H.M Government to prepare the British SCs for independence .Surprisingly by an unusual turn of events ,colonial intrigues made the UN to impose a holding of a plebiscite with two obnoxious clauses that denied our people the right to sovereign independence .Arguing that the British SCs was too poor to be economically viable as a sovereign state ,a baseless argument in violation of UN Resolution 1514 of 1960 on the granting of independence to all colonial and trust territories ,our people were compelled to enjoy independence either with Nigeria or LRC .Though both Nigeria and LRC promised a federal union , LRC being smaller than Nigeria agreed on a federal union with the SCs as two equal states of the federation .LRC pledged never to use its larger population to annex the SCs .On Feb 11,1960 majority SCameroonians voted to form a federal union of two Equal Status as stated in the Two Alternatives with LRC.It should be pointed out that two alternatives also listed the eight subjects reserved for the federal government while the rest were state subjects .It was thus a loose federation or an inter-parliamentary union with each state retaining its inherited colonial system and territory .On adoption of the plebiscite result ,the powerful 4th committee of the UN General Assembly ,on April 19,1961 overwhelmingly by 50 yes votes,2 no and 12 abstentions voted for the independence of the SCs declaring Oct 1, 1961 Independence Day of the SCs .Consequent on this vote on April 21 ,1961,the UN(GA) passed Resolution 1608 approving a post plebiscite conference to be attended by government of the SCs ,the government of LRC and the government of the UK as the administrative authority to work modalities for the federal union of the two states .It was clearly stated that this post plebiscite conference should hold before Oct 1,1961 the day on which the federal union was to come into effect .Most regrettably ,the UN took no steps to see into the implementation of this resolution 1608.The failure to implement this resolution coupled with Britain’s abrupt withdrawal of all its troops and civil servants ,created an opportunity for LRC to move in with troops and tactfully impose its will .Had the post plebiscite conference held ,a federal constitution and an Act or Treaty of Union would have been agreed upon which after ratification and signing by leaders of the two countries ,the treaty of union would have been registered with the UN General Secretariat in Conformity with Art 102(1) of the UN charter .Since the UN has none and understanding that the UN is not an agency of for the annexation and colonisation of small and weak states by powerful ones ,the mission of the UN to humanity demands that it be led to solve the problem it failed to avoid .The UN is sponsoring the federation of two states equal in status between its trust territories gave a new name that is Federal United Cameroon Republic to the new nation to be formed .When two nations or companies form a union ,or an association ,an umbrella name is agreed upon ;one does not unite with the other to extinct its identity .Unknown to the UN and the SCs,LRC hatched a plot to annex the SCs. The gradual process in the execution of its annexation plot started with LRC amending its 1960 constitution which in Sept 1 ,1961 President Ahmadou Ahidjo proclaimed to be the Federal Republic of Cameroon making French the authentic language .He became President of the Federal Republic of Cameroon on Sept 1,1961 one month before the UN birth day of the Federal Union of Oct 1 ,1961.Encouraged by this first successful act , as Britain withdrew all its troops on Sept. 30 , on Oct. 1 , 1961 the occupational forces of LRC took over in the SCs .Thanks to the federal support ,in 1972,20th May, the lame-legged federation was abolished and the SCs was annexed and reduced to two provinces of LRC and 20th May is therefore SCs day of Annexation and Assimilation .Its is a Day of National Mourning .LRC celebrates it as the day she captured her slaves but the Southern Cameroonians do not celebrate the day they were captured as slaves .Contrarily ,attempts at celebrating the independence day Oct 1 by the Southern Cameroonians is always met by the worst repression and plunder by the La Republique regime.
I hereby crave the indulgence of all the comrades and faithfuls of the Southern Cameroons to join hand together in the struggle geared towards to total liberation of our motherland .We must boycott all activities related to the LRC and I hereby implore all the SDF sympathisers to divert all energy and resources to the most legitimate and irrevocable quest for total liberation which is unequivocally linked to the SCNC .To LRC, God ordained and gave to people their freedom and inheritance and decreed ‘Do not remove the ancient Landmarks’ (Prov.23:10).
Peace to all the Southern Cameroonians,
Legima Doh,
Southern Cameroonian Fraternal.