Bloggers' Club

  • If you write well in English and have strong opinions please CLICK HERE to blog at Up Station Mountain Club.

Search this Site

December 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Jimbi Media Sites

  • AFRICAphonie
    AFRICAphonie is a Pan African Association which operates on the premise that AFRICA can only be what AFRICANS and their friends want AFRICA to be.
  • Jacob Nguni
    Virtuoso guitarist, writer and humorist. Former lead guitarist of Rocafil, led by Prince Nico Mbarga.
  • Postwatch Magazine
    A UMI (United Media Incorporated) publication. Specializing in well researched investigative reports, it focuses on the Cameroonian scene, particular issues of interest to the former British Southern Cameroons.
  • Bernard Fonlon
    Dr Bernard Fonlon was an extraordinary figure who left a large footprint in Cameroonian intellectual, social and political life.
  • George Ngwane: Public Intellectual
    George Ngwane is a prominent author, activist and intellectual.
  • PostNewsLine
    PostNewsLine is an interactive feature of 'The Post', an important newspaper published out of Buea, Cameroons.
  • France Watcher
    Purpose of this advocacy site: To aggregate all available information about French terror, exploitation and manipulation of Africa
  • Bakwerirama
    Spotlight on the Bakweri Society and Culture. The Bakweri are an indigenous African nation.
  • Simon Mol
    Cameroonian poet, writer, journalist and Human Rights activist living in Warsaw, Poland
  • Bate Besong
    Bate Besong, award-winning firebrand poet and playwright.
  • Fonlon-Nichols Award
    Website of the Literary Award established to honor the memory of BERNARD FONLON, the great Cameroonian teacher, writer, poet, and philosopher, who passionately defended human rights in an often oppressive political atmosphere.
  • Scribbles from the Den
    The award-winning blog of Dibussi Tande, Cameroon's leading blogger.
  • Omoigui.com
    Professor of Medicine and interventional cardiologist, Nowa Omoigui is also one of the foremost experts and scholars on the history of the Nigerian Military and the Nigerian Civil War. This site contains many of his writings and comments on military subjects and history.
  • Victor Mbarika ICT Weblog
    Victor Wacham Agwe Mbarika is one of Africa's foremost experts on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Dr. Mbarika's research interests are in the areas of information infrastructure diffusion in developing countries and multimedia learning.
  • Martin Jumbam
    The refreshingly, unique, incisive and generally hilarous writings about the foibles of African society and politics by former Cameroon Life Magazine columnist Martin Jumbam.
  • Enanga's POV
    Rosemary Ekosso, a Cameroonian novelist and blogger who lives and works in Cambodia.
  • Godfrey Tangwa aka Rotcod Gobata
    Renaissance man, philosophy professor, actor and newspaper columnist, Godfrey Tangwa aka Rotcod Gobata touches a wide array of subjects. Always entertaining and eminently readable. Visit for frequent updates.
  • Francis Nyamnjoh
    Francis B. Nyamnjoh is Associate Professor and Head of Publications and Dissemination with the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA).
  • Ilongo Sphere
    Novelist and poet Ilongo Fritz Ngalle, long concealed his artist's wings behind the firm exterior of a University administrator and guidance counsellor. No longer. Enjoy his unique poems and glimpses of upcoming novels and short stories.

  • Up Station Mountain Club
    A no holds barred group blog for all things Cameroonian. "Man no run!"
Start Geesee CHAT
Start Geesee CHAT

Up Station Mountain Club Newsfeed


Conception & Design


  • Jimbi Media

  • domainad1

« Bishops Say Cameroon Is Hell Of Insecurity | Main | The Post Front Page-Friday, January 16, 2009. »

Friday, 16 January 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

WE THE PEOPLE OF SC

Now you aesounding like a real patriotr Mr Chairman. But you just made another mistake. iF YOU WANNA BIT, BIT WITHOUT BARKING. Butyou must dub your war a Liberationstrugghle. dont hesitate to alert me when you need logistics. That i can guarantee you. It's what Mr Biyawants. Let's give it to him

Nditam

Not bad for a start Mr.Chairman.But I honestly doubt how much the international community can do to help our ailing democracy and country.We all just need to ge ahead with our struggle.The international community aint got much to say in this.Thanks for reminding us you're still there anyway.

Bob Bristol

Mr Chairman, stop comparing the situation of Ghana with that of Cameroon. The opposition in Ghana works harder to counter the ruling party.Mr Chairman what are you protecting? Is it your image or that of the Cameroonian people or is it your militants? Maybe it's your properties. Do you understand the meaning of FANATICS? How many fans do you still Have? Have you ever thought of a means of reviving the image of the party. Why have you decided to continue exploiting the humility of Cameroonians and the ignorance of some of your diehard supporters? Do you think your sentimental speech can make news headline in any international news organ?

Fru Ndi, please look for a Cameroonian with some integrity and hand over the leadership of the SDF to him/her. This is the ONLY way to save your image, your properties and the Cameroonian people.
I apologise to all the fervent supporters of the SDF who are of contrary opinion.

Dear All,
I was prompted to be part of this forum because I appreciated and respected the opinions of a cross section of those who posted here. I was equally aware of the limited number of internet users in Cameroon. However, I've been thinking of a possibility of assembling the best brains of this forum to impart a positive change in Cameroon. A lot of these "best brains" have left the forum already. Some people have been quick to mention that "Cameroonians only speak; they do not act". The CPDM is aware of this and they exploited this for too long.
Dear Compatriots, we do not need to know who is Mr A in order to make him part of a network that can create a positive political impact in Cameroon. We can start now. We can form a team that will one day put an indelible mark in the political history of Cameroon. Some compromises will be made and in less than no time, the pen names some of us are using will be revealed and eventually, a manifesto will be made public after a series of team meetings have been organised.

If you don't want to lose the comments of some members of this forum, then this is the only way we can be together to counter the paralysed democracy of Cameroon.

Thus is just is just a suggestion. We can put our heads together to develop it. We should be ready for discouraging criticism. We cannot undermine the fact that some irresponsible fellows are part of this forum. From their past and future comments, we would be able to sort them out.

May God bless this struggle.

foh nefoh

Answering to the "War Declaration" launched by the Head of State,Mr. Biya,appointing the highest members of Poliburo/Central Committee of his party,the CPDM,at the Board of Governors of ELECAM,the SDF National Chairman,Mr. Fru NDI has introduced an appeal near to the Head of State in the aims of annulation of those decrees,in the same way that structure.

If Mr.Biya does not answer favorably to our request within 2 months,we shall seize the Supreme Court as authorize the law. And if nothing is done at the Supreme Court's level,we shall be obligated to ask to Cameroonians,people in love with freedom,to go down the street with us and keep going the fight for the democratization of the electoral institutions in our country.

The Cameroonians in love with freedom must adopt a new attitude of mind in the fight against Mr.Biya.They must push him till his last retrenchments,harass him with his wicked laws and set him into the ROBERT MUGABE's situation whose the International Community ask anytime the resignation.

To push Mr. Biya who wants to remain in power till his death like LANSANA CONTE of Guinea,to give up,we shall take inspirations from the riots of early 90s and the last of February 2008. The way may be longest,because this time,we shall fight till Mr. Biya who wants to avoid the International Criminal Court in dying in power,surrender. We shall fight till the victory in order that Mr. Biya and his goverment pay for all economical crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Cameroonian People since 1982.

May the Cameroonian people be ready to the supreme sacrifice face to Mr.Biya's "War Declaration";be ready to commit the painful and hard fight which alone will bring freedom,justice and democracy for all in our country.

By Nkue Sop,Lawyer
SDF militant

Dr A A Agbormbai

Demonstrations in Cameroon are not usually as effective as they could be because they are often violent and destructive.

Some people think that to demonstrate is to vandalise property, manifest rage, and attack or kill people. It is also arguable that criminals infiltrate these demonstrations to take advantage of the protective mob environment.

Third world countries cannot afford violent or vandalising demonstrations (like you sometimes get in Europe) because these countries are poor and cannot afford to replace lost property. Destructive demonstrations make third world countries poorer and are therefore counterproductive.

Effective demonstrations are always peaceful. And the emphasis is on obstructing critical operations through sit-ins or interference with daily activities.

The point here is to make a nuisance of yourselves until the goal of the demonstration is achieved - i.e. the authorities yield to the demands of the demonstrators.

The goals or demands of a demonstration must always be reasonable or noble. In particular, a demonstration must never be used as a control tool to take advantage of authority. This would be an abuse of the method.

An effective demonstration is peaceful, meaning...

...No violence

...No vandalising public property or private businesses

...No guns or shooting at any one, including authority

...No raising your voice or temper

What is needed is cool, wilful, and deliberate disobedience and obstruction.

Now...

The ELECAM issue is a critical turning point in the history of Cameroon. In fact, it is so important, to the future sanity of the nation, that BIYA MUST BE FORCED TO PRODUCE THE GOODS.

Therefore, if all else fails and the issue is not rectified in the coming few weeks, I strongly recommend a mobilisation of the people along the peaceful lines described in this commentary.

But remember... no violence, no bad behaviour, no destruction of property, as these don't produce results!

TO THE MILITARY, POLICE, AND GENDARMES...

Remember that (like all security forces in the civilised world) you have a duty to follow professional practices in the performance of your duties.

Professionalism demands that your duty is to protect the people of Cameroon, not an individual.

True that your duty is to protect the integrity of the nation; but a nation without people is no nation... It is an abandoned desert-land... A forsaken land! Therefore, your duty is to the people of Cameroon.

Remember this always, when you do your job.

It is also your duty to be a Cameroonian patriot and, like all patriots, it is in your best interests to see Cameroon progress in the right direction - one of modernisation or increased civilisation.

The more modernised or civilised Cameroon is the stronger, better equipped, and more capable will be its security forces.

It is only in backward, uncivilised nations that security forces abandon the people to protect individuals.

Now, tell me... Can one person make a nation? If everyone were to disappear today from Cameroon and leave you with only one person to protect would you be happy? Would you say you have been doing your job?

Won't you become the laughing matter of the world? Can you imagine?.. The story will go: A security force that paid so much allegiance to one person that it cared not what happened to the rest of the nation. And then one day everyone disappeared and it was left with only this one person to protect! Ha ha ha.

Cameroon cannot modernise or progress without having a free, fair, and vibrant political system that embraces change. Note that progress means 'positive change.'

And Cameroon's political system cannot be free, fair, and vibrant if the electoral system is corrupt or biased. An election management body (like ELECAM) that is run by one political party cannot be fair! To be fair it must contain only neutral members (like the law demands).

Dr A A Agbormbai

Note... To be effective, any mobilisation of the people must involve the concerted efforts of all opposition parties.

anthony nsom

Mr Fru Ndi should practice what he preaches. Why does he seek to influence the election of sdf mps, mayors and party bosses and feel that Biya should be different?
Can Fru ndi's sdf win any election today by indirect universal suffrage even the NW province. In any such election the cpdm will carryt he day for they have the majority of ouncillors in the NW. Furthermore Fru Ndi might have lost more voters in any senatorial or regional election again by his recent failed attempt to impose a mayor in Fundong during the by elections of yesterday to replace the late one who died under suspicious circumstances. is the sdf last position on elecam well motivated even though genuine?
the leadership crisis that some former top sdf officials have cried over is gradually surfacing well for the limitations of Fr ndi are beginning to show and he has lost the NW clean and clear.
Is Cameroon cursed? the party in power, no good. the whole opposition no better, no hope.
truly we need a revolution but who will spearhead it? the answer is clear. none of the present leaders.

red flag

southern cameroons independence from paul biya french cameroun is what all must be singing not. speaking about french cameroun ,when even fry ndi is a foreigner.
their constitution written by france in 1960 doesnt recognise southern cameroonians

William

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS QUESTION AND AFRICAN UNITY


Introduction:

Whenever the Southern Cameroons Question is raised, there are always spontaneous reactions to it, either in the form of wondering why such an unbelievable story has so far not come to light, or in the form of expressing the opinion that any demands which lead to the birth of more states in Africa is against African integration, because it fragments Africa into more states and thereby weakens it, or the fear is expressed that a new trend for such demands may be set in motion.
These spontaneous fears and reactions are quite understandable, if we consider how human beings always first react to certain situations. Human beings are by nature conservative and fear anything which seems to change the status quo known to them too much, whether it be new technology, social changes or not. Most of the things that mankind afterwards enjoyed, worshiped and fights for, it at first resisted with all its might! The birth of new states is no exception.
The other question that often arises is why people don’t hear about the case. The reason is quite simple: because the People of Southern Cameroons have not resorted to slaughtering yet! The system of the world is such that violence has become the preferred method of putting problems on the agenda of the international community, for without violence, the international community is deaf and dumb to issues of justice. So far however, the people of Southern Cameroons have refrained from slaughter, no matter how much the silence of the African Union and other conflict resolution bodies is suggesting that they too take up arms so that their problem may be heard and addressed as a “conflict”. On the contrary, the People of Southern Cameroons see that their case is so overwhelmingly strong that they have decided to challenge it, so far, by a total reliance on the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Their current motto is: “The Force of Argument and Not the Argument of Force”. It is up to the African Union whether it will uphold its own principles or will, by indifference to them, make violence and slaughter the only option left. We can always say that there shall never be another Rwanda again, but adopt positions that bring about more of them, isn't it? Since those who are called upon to uphold the principles of integration and union are not currently held accountable for their actions, they can always earn their salaries while through their silence encourage more conflicts and more genocides! It will be easy after such genocides have happened through their silence on African Union principles, to make more beautiful speeches about the high principles of peace, early warning systems, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, conflict prevention mechanisms, and so on!!! Who cares what they mean and whether they mean anything at all! Not once have African Union reports on conflicts mentioned the Southern Cameroons Question, although the relevant organs of the Union have been duly seized of the conflict. The great challenge facing us with regards to the Southern Cameroons Question is therefore whether the African Union will allow the matter to be settled peacefully or whether it must engineer another Rwanda through its current attitude of indifference to the principles that are meant to bring peace to Africa!
The spontaneous reactions of saying that the Southern Cameroons Question threatens African integration harbour the danger that those who express them do so in a vacuum and out of context, in the sense that, they forget altogether that the principles guiding African integration have been laid down by common consent; that there are United Nations and international principles governing the relations between peoples, issues of territorial acquisition, the freedoms and rights that all peoples are entitled to enjoy; the crimes that no people may commit against another, and so on. It is these principles that govern the context within which all countries and people operate and interact. If our spontaneous reactions are not to become the law, we must always examine complaints and conflicts in the light of the principles we have laid down to govern the relations between peoples.
The history of the world also shows that these initial spontaneous reactions are neither justified nor in accordance with history. History shows that no matter how much we have disliked divorces, they still happen and they are healthy for partners who cannot live with each other and therefore healthy for mankind as a whole; the history of the world shows that no matter how we have resisted the birth of new states, the number of states in the world is ever increasing and never reducing; the history of the world shows that what makes for unity is not conversion of the whole world into one country (as emperors attempted to do), but greater understanding between peoples and common principles that guide our humanity; and finally history shows that the future of mankind is not bondage but freedom in all its forms. Unity is in the meeting of minds and history shows that with time, even enemy peoples voluntarily come together! The inner workings of nature that lead to the birth of new states will not stop because mankind is in the 21st Century. On the contrary, since injustices always take time to be uncovered, and freedom and justice are only increasing, more injustices will be uncovered which will lead to the birth of more new states! This is not wrong, but accords entirely with justice and freedom, the most fundamental yearnings of the human being. We can predict the birth of more new states with great confidence because the world we know today was not shaped through justice and freedom but through force, intrigues, injustice and the rule of might. As mankind finally comes to the realisation that force, intrigues and injustices cannot create a better world, no matter how few the number of states it creates, our method of achieving unity will change from physical force, injustices and intrigues to consensus-building, the promotion of justice and freedoms as we see with the European Union. The same principle by which Africa is asserting itself in the world through the African Union is the same principle at work in the Southern Cameroons Question where a people long stifled and wrongly swindled of their own space of existence on earth are seeking justice and restitution!
The birth of new states is fundamentally anchored in mankind’s unquenchable need for freedom, the protection of identity, the self-preservation of peoples who see themselves as a one, and most important of all, justice. When we protect these principles, we cannot go wrong, no matter what happens in the short-run!

What is the Southern Cameroons Question?
The Southern Cameroons Question is the following: Does the Republic of Cameroun have jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons? If yes, on what instrument of international law is such jurisdiction founded? The Southern Cameroons Question is therefore a territorial dispute between the People of Southern Cameroons on the one hand, and the Republic of Cameroun on the other hand, arising from what in the eyes of the People of Southern Cameroons, is the illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons’ territory by the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Southern Cameroons demand that The Republic of Cameroun should honour its treaty obligations under the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b)) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 19, 20(1), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1)), by withdrawing from the territory of Southern Cameroons to its internationally recognised boundaries.
Under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, no other boundaries are recognized, both by the signatory state and the African Union, to any party to that Act, than the boundaries each signatory State inherited at independence. Under Articles Article 19 of the ACHPR, All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. Under Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.

The Southern Cameroons question is thus primarily an international territorial dispute and secondarily the crime of the subjugation of the People of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun. As a territorial dispute, the People of Southern Cameroons are calling on The Republic of Cameroun to prove to the African Union and the international community, its claimed title of sovereignty to the Southern Cameroons territory, and calling for United Nations and African Union provisions on territorial matters to be enforced.
When the Southern Cameroons question is presented in the more general terms of a demand for independence or self-determination, misunderstandings are introduced into it, because no one then knows whether the people seeking independence or self-determination are merely a minority within a legally constituted part of a sovereign state who want to secede by invoking their right to self-determination, or whether these are a people with their own international territory who have been occupied from outside by another state. Presenting the case under the demand for independence and self-determination also confuses the Southern Cameroons Question with the case of territories that had no recognized status under international law, no internationally recognised boundaries prior their occupation by the country from which they demand independence, or which had not known any modern representative government.
The Southern Cameroons’s case does not fall under any of the above sub cases of independence and self-determination. The boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not created by The Republic of Cameroun; nor is the Southern Cameroons a part of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroun is a neighbouring country to Southern Cameroons that used historical circumstances and tricks to occupy Southern Cameroons. The Southern Cameroons, as part of the League of Nations’ mandate of The Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration, acquired international personality as from the moment it became a League of Nations Mandate and subsequently a United Nations Trust Territory under the Trusteeship Agreement signed between Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and the United Nations on the other hand. It achieved self-government in 1954, had a constitution, a constitutional government, internationally recognized boundaries safeguarded with international treaties, a Prime Minister, a Parliament, its own Government structures and was preparing for independence, when in 1961, through events that will become clear as the case is unfolded, it was occupied by The Republic of Cameroun, with no paper signed, no agreement and no instrument of International Law whatsoever!
It should be stated clearly at the outset therefore that the Southern Cameroons question is not about creating a new State out of another one; it is not about breaking up a State; it is not about carving one country out of another; it is not about secession; it is not about a minority within a state seeking self-determination or independence because it is dissatisfied with its treatment. It is about ending the illegal occupation of one country by another; it is about resolving a territorial dispute between two subjects of international law; it is about territorial restitution; it is about decolonization; it is about freeing a colonized and subjugated people and giving them back their freedom; it is about correcting international fraud and theft of one people's territory, country and space of existence by another; it is about enforcing the principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act, its Charters, the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law. The withdrawal of La Republique du Cameroun from the illegally occupied Southern Cameroons territory will not diminish the legal territory of La Republique; it will not change its recognized international boundaries; it will take absolutely nothing away from it!

Where is the Southern Cameroons, as a territory, located on the African map?

Source: Dr. Ngwang Ngumne: The Southern Cameroons, Misrule or Betrayal.

When people hear the term “Southern Cameroons”, they immediately think that it refers to the southern part of the Republic of Cameroun. No, the Southern Cameroons, the territory demanding the withdrawal of the Republic of Cameroun from its territory, is not and has never been a legal part of the Republic of Cameroun. The word “Southern” in the name “Southern Cameroons" refers to the Southern part of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom's Administration. The Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration was a non-contiguous territory, separated into a Northern and Southern part by a 64-kilometer stretch of land that was not part of its territory, and so it was practically divided, by the Administering Authority, into two: the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons, with each being recognised at the UN and treated in the same capacity as a separate Trust territory. It was by virtue of this recognition that the United Nations endorsed the two separate plebiscites held in Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons by the Administering Authority, even though the need for a plebiscite was itself questionable. It was also by virtue of this recognition that the Southern Cameroons went into negotiations with La Republique du Cameroun on the nature of the union which finally never took place. As a territory, the Southern Cameroons is located to the south east of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the south west of the Republic of Cameroun, as shown in the map above.

How did it happen? A brief presentation of the facts:
There is a certain danger in narration: narration prejudices the mind if we cannot draw the right logical conclusions from the facts alleged. This is why the courts are trained in drawing the right conclusions from narrations. When one listens to people arguing a matter, the side that has no proof for its case usually adopts the tactic of losing everyone in confused and lengthy narrations that cannot add up to proof. Another danger in narration is that facts are presented without being able to interpret them correctly or show their implication and impact, if any, on the problem that requires a solution. The Southern Cameroons question is one of those issues where because it is easy to lose the hearer in the thick and dark forest of lengthy narrations, the only way to have a handle on the matter is to focus on the proofs necessary to resolve it. The one question that the People of Southern Cameroons are asking LRC to answer is this: can LRC put on the table for the world to see any valid instrument of international law by which it is claiming jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons? This proof cannot be avoided, because LRC requires the international community to recognise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons. The only way the international community should do that is if the territory was acquired following the principles laid down by the international community. No country should lure the international community to become an accomplice to its violations of the principles laid down to promote peace and justice in the world by the same international community.

The facts:
Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Allied Forces decided to seize all German territories and to give them a completely new beginning under the new international system of the League of Nations. German Kamerun, one of the territories seized from Germany in Africa, was divided into two mandated territories through the Versailles Treaty, one placed under British administration and the other under the French administration. The Southern Cameroons belongs to the one under the British mandate.
After the Second World War, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and the system of mandates changed into the system of Trusts. On 13 December 1946, the United Kingdom signed a Trusteeship Agreement, with the United Nations, for the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration.
The purpose of creating Trust Territories was defined in Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter as being to lead the people of the trust territory to independence or self-government as the circumstances of each case might deman. Needless to say the fate of each Trust Territory was in no way linked in any UN instrument to that of another; each was pursuing its own destiny, each being equal to the other under international law.
Benefiting from this system of Trusts, French Cameroons, which was being administered by France under a separate Trusteeship Agreement, gained its independence on 1 January 1960.
The Cameroons under UK Administeration was divided into two parts, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons. In 1954 the Southern Cameroons gained self-government with a Prime Minister, constitutional government, a Parliament and its own state structures.
Nigeria, from which Southern Cameroons was being governed, gained independence on 1 October 1960, and in respect of the separate status of Southern Cameroons, it was no longer possible to rule it from that country. Therefore discussions began for the question of the independence of the Cameroons under UK administration.
Contrary to Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, the Administering Authority, the UK, decided, instead of granting independence, to organize two plebiscites, one in Northern Cameroons and one in Southern Cameroons. This was a shock, especially in view of the fact that the self-government of the Southern Cameroons was the last step to its independence and sovereignty.
The questions put in the Plebiscite to the People of Southern Cameroons were these: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon? OR “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?”
The People of Southern Cameroons voted by 7:3, to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria.
On April 21 1961, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1608 (XV) in which it recognized the results of the Plebiscite, called for a Post-plebiscite Conference between the Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to reach an agreement (treaty) by which the intentions expressed in the Plebiscite could be implemented. The passing of this Resolution was the last act of the United Nations on the Southern Cameroons!!!!
Unfortunately, because of lack of follow up by the United Nations and its Administering Authority, the UK, Resolution 1608(XV) was never implemented. Instead, a series of conspiracies took place through which instead of a Treaty of Union taking place between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern Cameroons was occupied by the Republic of Cameroun and the occupation thinly veiled with a so-called federation whose constitution was written by the Republic of Cameroun and imposed on the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN Trust Territory.
Short commentary on the facts:
As stated in the introduction to this part, without understanding the meaning and interpretation of various alleged events and facts, it would be difficult to get a handle on this story. The greatest point of misunderstanding has been the interpretation of the Plebiscite. Most people, as soon as the fact is acknowledged that there was a Plebiscite in which the People of Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun, rush to the conclusion that there was valid union. By what instrument or Act? Can two subjects of international law just merge informally and without any evidence to that effect? Even if, without evidence, anyone grants that the People of Southern Cameroons joined, should he also not grant that they can withdraw? Can valid consent be acknowledged only to say “Yes” but never again to say “No”? Clearly the People who are alleged to have the consent to say “yes” must also be able to say “No”, unless there is duress and fraud on them! In addition, political unions are not a way by which one people surrender or give away their territory and space of existence to another people. Consequently, even a political union would not have given the Cameroun Republic any sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons territory. Political unions are purely administrative conveniences!
The Plebiscite was essentially a dialogue between the United Nations and the People of Southern Cameroons, with the Republic of Cameroun having no part in it. Its result was simply the answer the people of Southern Cameroons gave to the United Nations in response to the question the United Nations had put to them. How could this answer, made to the United Nations, by the People of Southern Cameroons, in response to a question put to them by the United Nations become a treaty of Union, or even the implementation of the wish expressed in the answer, or even the Act of joining? No matter how we stretch our imagination, the Plebiscite could not be a Treaty of Union, the Act of joining or the achievement of independence.
It was precisely in recognition of the fact that what the people of Southern Cameroons said in the Plebiscite could not bind them to any third party that Resolution 1608(XV) was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 April 1961. It called for the Post-Plebiscite Conference and the working out of an agreement to implement the intentions of the parties. In other words, it recognised that the implementation of the Plebiscite results, through the signing of a valid international treaty, as was necessary between two subjects of international law (the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun), could only take place after the expression of the intention through the mechanism of the Plebiscite.
It is irrelevant by what means The Republic of Cameroun managed to occupy the Southern Cameroons without a valid instrument of international law: whether it was by bribing certain people in the Southern Cameroons, by the conspiracy of the Administering Authority, by duress or whatever, does not matter. All these conspiracies, intrigues or bribery or duress are separate crimes on their own, but they cannot validly transfer the territory and posterity of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun! No one can have a greater right to the territory of the Southern Cameroons than the people of Southern Cameroons!

Why can the people of Southern Cameroons not just accept to live together with the Republic of Cameroun in peace?

It is very easy for a person whose own people and country did not accept occupation and colonization, to now suggest to the people of Southern Cameroons to live with such a crime, for we have not yet learnt to treat with others as we would like to be treated! See the joy in the eyes of a free people; see how each country celebrates its national heroes and the day it achieved independence; see how fiercely every people defend their independence! If it is so sweet for everyone else, why not for the People of Southern Cameroons? How do you suggest to a person that he does not need a house of his own, while everyone else is fighting to have a house? These are some of the more pertinent reasons why the people of Southern Cameroons cannot simply live in peace with the invaders.
(1) Peace cannot be predicated without justice, without freedom, and in a situation in which one people’s territory and resources have been fraudulently seized by another people. Talking of living together may suggest that the two peoples, the people of Southern Cameroons and the People of the Republic of Cameroun, are disputing territory or space of existence. NO! The Republic of Cameroun has its own territory and way of life, which the People of Southern Cameroons are not disputing, but has left its own territory and crossed its recognised international borders to invade and occupy the territory of Southern Cameroons and imposed an alien way of life on it. Good fences make good neighbours; that is the best way it should be! Never suggest that the fence which separates two neighbours should be broken down so that they may live together in “peace”! It is the putting up of the fence that will bring peace and so-called living together.
(2) The nature of the human being and the nature of colonization make it impossible for the two to live together. On the one hand, human nature is self-determining; that is, no one wants to surrender his own life and house to his neighbour no matter how poor or unable he may be. No people too want to surrender their homeland and space of existence to another people. Each one wants to be his own master in his own house and on his own territory. Isn’t it surprising that one people think they know the value of territory, freedom and self-determination, but the people they occupy should not know? If a homeland and territory are so good for the colonial master, why should it not be for the occupied peoples who are also human beings?
(3) The nature of colonization too makes it impossible: colonization is armed robbery and rape of the highest type, committed by one people against another. It does and can only live on the use of arms, because it is an imposition! Because the people who have been fraudulently or wrongfully occupied will resist it, the only way colonization can maintain itself is through violence, intimidation, force, arrests, torture, extra-judicial killings, and the bribing of consciences. No beautiful public speeches and sweet talk about democracy and freedoms or development can change its inherent nature to be like this. Only foreigners separated by distance or people being bribed to collaborate can fail to see this. Colonisation is always suspicious that the people it has wrongfully occupied will recover their freedom at the first opportunity, and so from this suspicion is ever prompt to suppress. It is also a system of exploitation, because the first reason for seizing other peoples’ territory is always economic; to develop your own country and impoverish the colonized peoples! Therefore in all situations of colonization, the colonized peoples are being underdeveloped; a master and servant relationship always exists. Whatever superficial dazzles are used to cover up these facts, they are only like a beautiful body covering a cancer underneath.
(4) Colonisation is a crime against humanity. To remotely suggest that some people should accept it is an insult to their humanity, especially to Africa which fought it for so long. To make such a suggestion is to empower the colonial master to do as it likes with those who, from their higher human nature, cannot accept to be subdued by colonisation. What will happen in that case is that relying on such support from the international community, nationalists will quickly be styled by the colonial master as rebels, secessionists, terrorists, trouble-makers, disgruntled few, so as to kill them for daring to question the legality of its presence on their territory. Another danger of bargaining with the devil of colonisation is that such bargains must always come back to haunt us. Therefore the international community must never suggest such a thing, because it only blesses more violence, impunity and a reign of terror from the colonial regime. The answer to colonization has never been a suggestion to live with it!
(5) The absence of justice. Colonisation by definition is armed robbery and rape all combined, and none of them tolerates resistance or opposition of any kind. They are things that can only be done by violence, not through consent. Therefore in the eyes of a colonial regime, it is never right to oppose its occupation, and therefore there can never be any justice also for those who question that occupation; the courts and the whole system will be instruments to promote that occupation! Nationalists of the country or territory occupied are therefore the natural enemies of colonization, even if kangaroo trials are organised to deceive the world. Since nationalists will never accept colonisation, to suggest that the occupied people should live with colonization is to deprive its nationalists (who are the more noble and more developed members of its population) of justice altogether, because the colonial regime is their natural enemy.
(6) There are people who because they themselves do not know what is called the cancer of colonization, find it easy to suggest that the People of Southern Cameroons should patch up with it; that the problem can be cured with good governance, decentralization and so on. This is an argument that was buried with Africa’s own fight for decolonization. At that time, many Africans argued that everything would fall into ruin; Africans were not yet ripe to govern themselves, that colonial masters governed Africans better than they would govern themselves and so on. These arguments never succeeded. Quite simply, and to put it crudely, it is better to eat your own shit than someone else’s own! The problems of colonization or external domination are a very different order of problems altogether from whatever internal problems a people may have. The problems you have in your own house are different from the problems imposed on you by a neighbour who has occupied your house. When Southern Cameroons was taken over, the first thing the colonial regime did was to shut down all its airports, wharfs, hydro-electric plants, banks and wipe out all economic infrastructure! Even the archives were seized and a large part of it forcefully carried to Yaounde! It then embarked on the wiping off from memory of every trace of the previous existence of Southern Cameroons: names of towns were changed; the flag changed; even the Plebiscite day was renamed to “Youth Day”; the unilateral federation which had been imposed to deceive the international community and fold the eyes of the inattentive Southern Cameroonians was abolished; the name of the country was progressively changed to the name The Republic of Cameroun had before its independence: La Republique du Cameroun. The two parts of the Southern Cameroons carved out into provinces of the colonial country were not linked by road and to go to each part, the roads go through La Republique du Cameroun! There has been systematic underdevelopment of the Southern Cameroons, even though the oil from which La Republique du Cameroun gets its money is from the Southern Cameroons. We say in our dialect that when you take a child's groundnuts, at least give him the peelings: in our case, not even the peelings have been given the People of Southern Cameroons!
(7) Finally, no one can have a greater right to the territory of Southern Cameroons than the People of Southern Cameroons themselves, and no one should be allowed to exercise such right. The People of Southern Cameroons are not claiming even a blade of grass from La Republque du Cameroun; all they are asking is that La Republique should withdraw from their territory to its own. No one loses anything in this withdrawal; instead peace, better relations and a new air of relief is restored for everyone. Freedom and Africa are the winners.


How does the Southern Cameroons Question offend African unity and integration?
In this part of the article we shall examine the soundness of the position that to restore the international personality of the Southern Cameroons by re-asserting its international borders and asking the Republic of Cameroon to withdraw to the borders recognized to it under the African Union Constitutive Act, the United Nations Charter and International Law in general, is contrary to African integration and unity.
As stated above, the Southern Cameroons Question cannot be discussed in a vacuum and out of context, and thus make our unverified and untested opinions the law on the matter. It can only be discussed within the context of international principles and the principles of African integration and union!
Once it is placed within the context of international law and African Union principles in particular, the question naturally arises: what are the principles of African integration, as laid down in any African Union text, that the People of Southern Cameroons are violating by asking La Republique du Cameroun to honour its treaty obligations to respect its borders as stipulated under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act? We cannot allege a contravention of African integration without being able to cite a single principle of integration that has been violated. The People of Southern Cameroons are backing their case by a list of the various principles of integration and Union that La Republique du Cameroun is violating with respect to the Southern Cameroons People and their territory. Let anyone who challenges their case do the same!
The principles of African Integration and Union
African Unity and Integration are not what each individual may think they are; it is not a matter of private persuasion or individual opinion. All the principles that are intended to promote the unity of Africa or its union are enshrined in its various governing texts, chief among which are the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The existence of these collectively-agreed-upon principles means that no one shall be allowed to talk about African problems and disputes without basing their position or opinion on these fundamental texts! It means that as long as African problems are being resolved on the basis of those principles, African Unity is being promoted and safeguarded! Any attempt to ignore these texts and talk about African problems from private persuasions and individual motives, whether considered as political or not, is to sow more conflicts in Africa! So-called political reasons that are not founded on collective principles enshrined in the fundamental texts of the Union are incapable of promoting peace and African Unity, especially in the long-run. The persistent attempt to override existing texts and principles with private opinion merely because one is in a position of power is an evil that is killing justice and the rule of law among the very people who are called upon to uphold the collective principles that should govern the peaceful relations between African peoples. All those called upon to resolve African problems are under an obligation not to express an opinion which is not founded on the fundamental texts collectively laid down to promote African Unity and resolve African problems. If they do so, they should indeed be held to be agents of conflicts on the Continent! So much injustice, conflicts and evils continue on the continent because those called upon to uphold the collective principles of unity do not feel themselves under any obligation to uphold those principles and are never held accountable for expressing opinions and taking positions which are not based on the fundamental texts of the Union. Everyone is at liberty to ignore the principles of the Union and talk about issues on the basis of their private persuasions! And then when conflicts arise, they come and make more speeches and promise never to see more Rwandas again. All the time however, their attitudes are just grooming more conflicts.
With regard to the Southern Cameroons Question, the fundamental texts which contain the violations that the Republic of Cameroun is being charged with are the OAU Charter (Article 2); the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b); and the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:
Articles 19: All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Article 21(1): All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people de deprived of it.
Article 22(1): All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
Article 23(1): All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. The principles of solidarity and friendly relations implicitly affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirmed by that of the Organisation of African Unity shall govern relations between states.
Article 24(1): All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

Eradicating colonization in all its forms:
Those who argue that liberation struggles and the demand for an end to colonization is contrary to African unity must have a very curious idea of unity. The Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, was founded principally to end colonization in all its forms on the African continent (Article 2, OAU Charter). The mistaken idea that prevails among some people is to think that the colonization that the OAU was set up to fight was only the colonization of Africa by foreigners and not also the colonization of Africans by Africans. Colonisation as a crime against humanity does not distinguish between who is colonized and who is colonizing. Africans are certainly part of humanity! All colonization has the same motives and behaves in the same criminal way and commits the same crimes. As the highest form of armed robbery and rape, it lives only on the use of force, violence, intimidation, the buying of consciences and fraud, for it knows that the rightful owners can NEVER voluntarily surrender their life, land, resources, and posterity to another people.
Dangers of turning integration and union into an ideology
At all times, we should bear in mind the crimes ideologies have promoted. The danger of turning the quest for integration and union into an ideology is that like all ideologies, people will begin to think that the same crimes that the ideology is meant to eradicate can be committed in the name of the ideology; people begin to think that the methods by which the ideology is achieved do not matter! Yet, what separates evil and good are the methods of each! We cannot achieve integration and union by tolerating the crimes that integration and union are meant to eradicate!
A wrong definition of the Southern Cameroons Question:
Part of the argument that the Southern Cameroons Question is against African integration and unity may have stemmed from a wrong understanding or misinterpretation of what the Southern Cameroons problem is. The Southern Cameroons problem may have been wrongly understood as a minority problem; a domestic problem; a linguistic problem; a question of secession or even the break-up of a state. Now, it is clear that it is none of these. After reading the definition of the Southern Cameroons Question as presented in this article, this initial opinion should now change. At the very least, the right attitude is not to fear to hear the facts and start passing judgment, but to seek full disclosure of the facts of this extraordinary story. Only through full and complete investigation of the facts of this story can its truth be established and the problem resolved in a lasting way.
Fear of further fragmentation of Africa
Another fear of people who see the Southern Cameroons Question as a threat to African integration and unity is, as stated above, that the birth of more states will lead to the further fragmentation of Africa. These are speculative fears which are not based on a hearing of the facts of the Southern Cameroons case at all. Such generalized speculation does the injustice of lumping all cases together, although the only way to treat each case is to hear its own facts first. Each case must be treated on its own merits. If the facts of one case are tested against international principles and they pass, that is no guarantee that every other case will pass the test. Therefore this fear is prejudicial and unfounded.
This fear also suggests that African integration can justify illegal territorial acquisition, the promotion of colonisation or the injustice of one person taking over his neighbour's house on the pretext that he is doing so for tribal unity! Or that the cure to the territorial fragmentation of Africa is through the perpetuation of existing injustices or the unavowed approval of territorial theft. The big idea here is that we want to create a larger territorial unit called an integrated or united Africa through fraud or the turning of a blind eye to the practices of fraud by one African people against another! In such a case, countries that use overt force or illegal and fraudulent means to occupy territory belonging to other people would just become agents of integration, although they themselves are not grabbing their neighbours’ territories in order to turn it over to the Union! Who will buy such an ideology of integration behind which there is hidden promotion of crimes and injustices? Where have we kept our memory of history to see that all previous empires created through this method have collapsed? Quite simply, this is a perversion of the principles of the African Union.
The extreme argument
In the extreme, it can be argued that almost all present African States were created through colonization and force, so why can't the same process be used by African States to enlarge their boundaries or subjugate other African peoples? After all, this is how all empires and even most states were formed! This, in fact seems to be the subconscious argument in the minds of those who think that a blind eye should be turned to countries which are using force to prevent those African peoples whose territories have been colonized by other African countries from gaining their independence. But let us ask ourselves these questions: (1) For whose good will that be, that of the colonizers or the colonized? (2) What is this dogma and hypnotic idea about forming larger entities? (3) If they are formed by conquest, wouldn’t they be kept only by force and more crimes on those who have been conquered?; (4) Is such an idea not a desire to turn back the hands of the clock from all the progress mankind has made in rejecting the law of the jungle and instituting principles of international law governing the relations between peoples and the methods of territorial acquisition? All one needs to say to counter such an argument is this: If Africans have now decided that colonization is no more a crime, let them so inform the rest of the world and stop using the argument of their own colonization to their advantage. How can colonization, which African leaders condemn on a daily basis in their speeches, suddenly become so acceptable because it is being committed by Africans against other Africans? All colonization comes with the same crimes, and how can Africa today say that it is willing to promote those crimes by Africans against Africans, for the sake of unity? We say that we are creating a union in order to help free the African from the crimes and bondage that he has been subject to, both at national level, and from foreign occupation. How then can these same crimes be promoted for the sake of that union? Africa should in this case hail colonization for helping to unify Africa, and stop accusing colonization for Africa's backwardness in every domain. We can therefore see that even such an extreme argument does not hold water.
Argument against the recognition of more states in Africa
The argument that the recognition of more States emerging from colonisation is against African unity is bizarre, seeing that the OAU's principal goal was to welcome more African countries into its fold as they emerged from colonization. How is admitting a new member who has been liberated from European colonization different from admitting a new member who has been liberated from the colonization of another African State? Welcoming Southern Cameroons into its fold as a new member liberated from the colonization of La Republique du Cameroun has just the same liberating and joyous effect as what happened when those African countries liberated from European colonization were welcomed into the OAU!
The fear of the birth of new states also suggests that a union of fewer states will be stronger than a union of more states. What is the basis of the suggestion that a union of 54 states is less united or less strong than one of 53 states? Isn't it variety and specialization that makes for perfection and therefore perfection increases with numbers? A union of states in conflict is far less efficient and more unstable than a union with peaceful states. The more conflicts there are within States, especially conflicts arising from colonization, the more it is only a matter of time for the union to spend its energies on wars and conflicts instead of on development.
The kinds of arguments that oppose the birth of more States give an opportunity to state this truth: that the dynamics and laws that lead to the birth and death of States have not ceased to operate because we are in the 21st century or because we have formed the African Union. Anyone who cares should observe that the number of States in the world has never ceased to increase; it is only increasing. And it will only continue to increase as individual freedom and the freedom of expression of presently oppressed peoples increases. In addition, the jungle law of might will have no place in the future of humanity; justice, truth and voluntary relinquishing of what is wrong will mean that we will see a break up of many present States, thus changing the map of the world in ways which we can now little expect! Even more beautiful is the fact that after their liberation, these states, seeing and working for their own greater good in bigger entities, will voluntarily accept to be part of Union as we have seen with Europe or Africa! There is no need to resist this trend, which is only for the greater good of mankind and of all its peoples.


A united and integrated Africa is not another empire to be built on fraud and territorial theft. All former empires collapsed because they were built through force and injustices. All illegal territorial acquisition, to build larger countries, like empires were built, simply sows new seeds of future disintegration, because human nature will never accept those injustices. This is why the principle of self-determination is a universal principle. It is because mankind has recognized that no country built on theft, force and injustices can last that the method by which unions, integration and unity is built today is by voluntary and mutual consent. If it is even remotely suggested that African integration is secretly based on a belief in injustice and fraud, no country will buy into it anymore! It is also clear that there will be no reason to respect justice or any law in such entities created through fraud and theft by those who were able to do so! These unconscious or premeditated tendencies of trying to create larger territorial units by fraud and injustice, or by turning a blind eye to them, are the same tendencies that Africa has continued to condemn in the European colonization of Africa. How can Africa be heard to be contemplating the same methods and acts? This is imperialism calling itself integration! These things enable us to see at what level our minds are and why we continue to create conflicts in the name of solving them.
CONCLUSION

Building one world is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process. Each people will come to accept the idea of a larger union only at their own good time as the illusions and fears they hold are conquered by the evidence of their own higher good in the larger unions which they may join. If we are impatient about this, inevitably we will seek to bypass the consent of those involved, and that is the beginning of future trouble because the people have not inwardly come to recognition of their own good in a larger union, but have been forced, precipitated or deceived into it.
African unity is like world unity, like family unity, or tribal unity. If the world cannot be united by subordinating and colonising other parts of the world, then Africa cannot be united by promoting colonization among its peoples and countries. How many African countries while they were struggling to free themselves from colonization would have listened to the argument that colonization was for the unity of the world? Today, Africa, through the African Union, is struggling to unite itself and assert its independence; is this against the unity of the world? How then can the fight for the people of Southern Cameroons to assert themselves and recover their territory long swindled from them be against the unity of Africa? No one unites the tribe by occupying the house of his neighbours or by instituting forced marriages! Unity is not slavery; it can never be! The sooner our ideas of union and unity are clarified, the better it will be for Africa, because these arguments betray horrendous obscurities from which most of Africa's conflicts are generated by those who have been appointed to foster unity. It is curious to note the divergence between the private persuasions of those who are called upon to work for Africa’s unity and the fundamental principles enshrined in the basic texts that have been collectively laid down to promote unity in Africa and govern the peaceful relations between its peoples!
In law, it is said that there is no agreement unless there is a meeting of minds. Therefore unity can be achieved only through agreement and therefore through greater freedom and greater justice in accordance with the principles entrenched in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Union's various governing texts. Colonisation is destructive of union, because it is destructive of any agreement. Where there is no justice, no freedom, no transparency, no full disclosure, there can be no agreement and therefore also no union or integration.
By seeking justice and restitution of their territory from which they have been wrongfully swindled, the people of Southern Cameroons are not going against African integration and unity. On the contrary, they are promoting it by invoking the principles on which integration and union are founded. And if it became necessary in the future for each people to turn over their territories for the purpose of integration or union, the territory would be turned over, not to a neighbour trying to swindle more territory for itself, but to the Union. The People of Southern Cameroons believe that African integration is built on consent; full and transparent disclosure of its goals and the methods to attain them; on the fact that integration and union embody mechanisms for justice, common good and values that could not be achieved otherwise and therefore which will attract all African peoples to voluntarily join because they see their own higher good in it.
However long colonization may last, it will never make the colonized country and territory a legal part of the colonizing country. This is why African countries were able, after, in some cases centuries, to still reassert their right to their own existence and sovereign independence. What establishes and proves colonization in modern history is the method by which the territory under dispute was acquired. The illegal acquisition of territory and the subjugation of one people by another are condemned world-wide and in all international legal instruments and declarations. In the case of the colonization of the Southern Cameroons by the Republic of Cameroun, colonization is conclusively proved by the fact that there is no Treaty of Union between the Republic of Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons and there is no International Treaty by which the boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon have been extended from what they were at the attainment of its independence on January 1 1960 (when the Southern Cameroons was still a UN Trust Territory), to now include the territory of the Southern Cameroons. Add to this the fact that the People of Southern Cameroons reject the rule of La Republique du Cameroun over their territory and are demanding that such illegal rule come to an immediate end. All narrations, however intricate, which cannot produce the proofs that La Republique du Cameroun’s jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons is founded on International Law, are of no avail. Secondly, colonization is also proved beyond doubt by the manner in which the colonized people are treated with respect to their struggle to assert their own independent existence. Colonial regimes live on intimidation, arrests, torture and imprisonment of liberation fighters, and on the buying of the consciences of those known in history as "collaborators"; they can never dare to face justice, law and truth! In the case of the Southern Cameroons' struggle, the colonial regime is so terrified of the truth that it has never for once accepted to sit down with the various liberation movements to discuss the matter, despite the numerous calls for dialogue. Instead, counting on its guns and prisons, it has arrested, tortured and imprisoned many Southern Cameroonians merely for daring to question the legal grounds of the colonial regime's pretended jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons.
Those who raise the argument that the recognition of new States or the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their peoples is contrary to African unity only thereby expose their own grave ignorance of the principles of Union entrenched in the governing texts of the African Union, as well as their enormous oblivion to the one fundamental trend of human history, which is that freedom is the future of mankind. Africa was able to free itself only because it insisted on the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their recognition as new states! If some people think union can be achieved through the promotion of colonization, then let them put it down as a union principle!
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the Southern Cameeroons case is founded entirely on African Union principles and that the case can be resolved only by upholding those principles. Not one principle of Union can be shown to have been violated by the people of Southern Cameroons. It does not help Africa to lay down beautiful principles and then shy away from applying them when the injustices that can only be resolved by applying those principles are brought to light. The courage to uphold African Union principles will determine whether Africa will come out of conflicts or will sink further into them.

William

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS QUESTION AND AFRICAN UNITY


Introduction:

Whenever the Southern Cameroons Question is raised, there are always spontaneous reactions to it, either in the form of wondering why such an unbelievable story has so far not come to light, or in the form of expressing the opinion that any demands which lead to the birth of more states in Africa is against African integration, because it fragments Africa into more states and thereby weakens it, or the fear is expressed that a new trend for such demands may be set in motion.
These spontaneous fears and reactions are quite understandable, if we consider how human beings always first react to certain situations. Human beings are by nature conservative and fear anything which seems to change the status quo known to them too much, whether it be new technology, social changes or not. Most of the things that mankind afterwards enjoyed, worshiped and fights for, it at first resisted with all its might! The birth of new states is no exception.
The other question that often arises is why people don’t hear about the case. The reason is quite simple: because the People of Southern Cameroons have not resorted to slaughtering yet! The system of the world is such that violence has become the preferred method of putting problems on the agenda of the international community, for without violence, the international community is deaf and dumb to issues of justice. So far however, the people of Southern Cameroons have refrained from slaughter, no matter how much the silence of the African Union and other conflict resolution bodies is suggesting that they too take up arms so that their problem may be heard and addressed as a “conflict”. On the contrary, the People of Southern Cameroons see that their case is so overwhelmingly strong that they have decided to challenge it, so far, by a total reliance on the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Their current motto is: “The Force of Argument and Not the Argument of Force”. It is up to the African Union whether it will uphold its own principles or will, by indifference to them, make violence and slaughter the only option left. We can always say that there shall never be another Rwanda again, but adopt positions that bring about more of them, isn't it? Since those who are called upon to uphold the principles of integration and union are not currently held accountable for their actions, they can always earn their salaries while through their silence encourage more conflicts and more genocides! It will be easy after such genocides have happened through their silence on African Union principles, to make more beautiful speeches about the high principles of peace, early warning systems, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, conflict prevention mechanisms, and so on!!! Who cares what they mean and whether they mean anything at all! Not once have African Union reports on conflicts mentioned the Southern Cameroons Question, although the relevant organs of the Union have been duly seized of the conflict. The great challenge facing us with regards to the Southern Cameroons Question is therefore whether the African Union will allow the matter to be settled peacefully or whether it must engineer another Rwanda through its current attitude of indifference to the principles that are meant to bring peace to Africa!
The spontaneous reactions of saying that the Southern Cameroons Question threatens African integration harbour the danger that those who express them do so in a vacuum and out of context, in the sense that, they forget altogether that the principles guiding African integration have been laid down by common consent; that there are United Nations and international principles governing the relations between peoples, issues of territorial acquisition, the freedoms and rights that all peoples are entitled to enjoy; the crimes that no people may commit against another, and so on. It is these principles that govern the context within which all countries and people operate and interact. If our spontaneous reactions are not to become the law, we must always examine complaints and conflicts in the light of the principles we have laid down to govern the relations between peoples.
The history of the world also shows that these initial spontaneous reactions are neither justified nor in accordance with history. History shows that no matter how much we have disliked divorces, they still happen and they are healthy for partners who cannot live with each other and therefore healthy for mankind as a whole; the history of the world shows that no matter how we have resisted the birth of new states, the number of states in the world is ever increasing and never reducing; the history of the world shows that what makes for unity is not conversion of the whole world into one country (as emperors attempted to do), but greater understanding between peoples and common principles that guide our humanity; and finally history shows that the future of mankind is not bondage but freedom in all its forms. Unity is in the meeting of minds and history shows that with time, even enemy peoples voluntarily come together! The inner workings of nature that lead to the birth of new states will not stop because mankind is in the 21st Century. On the contrary, since injustices always take time to be uncovered, and freedom and justice are only increasing, more injustices will be uncovered which will lead to the birth of more new states! This is not wrong, but accords entirely with justice and freedom, the most fundamental yearnings of the human being. We can predict the birth of more new states with great confidence because the world we know today was not shaped through justice and freedom but through force, intrigues, injustice and the rule of might. As mankind finally comes to the realisation that force, intrigues and injustices cannot create a better world, no matter how few the number of states it creates, our method of achieving unity will change from physical force, injustices and intrigues to consensus-building, the promotion of justice and freedoms as we see with the European Union. The same principle by which Africa is asserting itself in the world through the African Union is the same principle at work in the Southern Cameroons Question where a people long stifled and wrongly swindled of their own space of existence on earth are seeking justice and restitution!
The birth of new states is fundamentally anchored in mankind’s unquenchable need for freedom, the protection of identity, the self-preservation of peoples who see themselves as a one, and most important of all, justice. When we protect these principles, we cannot go wrong, no matter what happens in the short-run!

What is the Southern Cameroons Question?
The Southern Cameroons Question is the following: Does the Republic of Cameroun have jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons? If yes, on what instrument of international law is such jurisdiction founded? The Southern Cameroons Question is therefore a territorial dispute between the People of Southern Cameroons on the one hand, and the Republic of Cameroun on the other hand, arising from what in the eyes of the People of Southern Cameroons, is the illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons’ territory by the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Southern Cameroons demand that The Republic of Cameroun should honour its treaty obligations under the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b)) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 19, 20(1), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1)), by withdrawing from the territory of Southern Cameroons to its internationally recognised boundaries.
Under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, no other boundaries are recognized, both by the signatory state and the African Union, to any party to that Act, than the boundaries each signatory State inherited at independence. Under Articles Article 19 of the ACHPR, All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. Under Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.

The Southern Cameroons question is thus primarily an international territorial dispute and secondarily the crime of the subjugation of the People of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun. As a territorial dispute, the People of Southern Cameroons are calling on The Republic of Cameroun to prove to the African Union and the international community, its claimed title of sovereignty to the Southern Cameroons territory, and calling for United Nations and African Union provisions on territorial matters to be enforced.
When the Southern Cameroons question is presented in the more general terms of a demand for independence or self-determination, misunderstandings are introduced into it, because no one then knows whether the people seeking independence or self-determination are merely a minority within a legally constituted part of a sovereign state who want to secede by invoking their right to self-determination, or whether these are a people with their own international territory who have been occupied from outside by another state. Presenting the case under the demand for independence and self-determination also confuses the Southern Cameroons Question with the case of territories that had no recognized status under international law, no internationally recognised boundaries prior their occupation by the country from which they demand independence, or which had not known any modern representative government.
The Southern Cameroons’s case does not fall under any of the above sub cases of independence and self-determination. The boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not created by The Republic of Cameroun; nor is the Southern Cameroons a part of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroun is a neighbouring country to Southern Cameroons that used historical circumstances and tricks to occupy Southern Cameroons. The Southern Cameroons, as part of the League of Nations’ mandate of The Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration, acquired international personality as from the moment it became a League of Nations Mandate and subsequently a United Nations Trust Territory under the Trusteeship Agreement signed between Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and the United Nations on the other hand. It achieved self-government in 1954, had a constitution, a constitutional government, internationally recognized boundaries safeguarded with international treaties, a Prime Minister, a Parliament, its own Government structures and was preparing for independence, when in 1961, through events that will become clear as the case is unfolded, it was occupied by The Republic of Cameroun, with no paper signed, no agreement and no instrument of International Law whatsoever!
It should be stated clearly at the outset therefore that the Southern Cameroons question is not about creating a new State out of another one; it is not about breaking up a State; it is not about carving one country out of another; it is not about secession; it is not about a minority within a state seeking self-determination or independence because it is dissatisfied with its treatment. It is about ending the illegal occupation of one country by another; it is about resolving a territorial dispute between two subjects of international law; it is about territorial restitution; it is about decolonization; it is about freeing a colonized and subjugated people and giving them back their freedom; it is about correcting international fraud and theft of one people's territory, country and space of existence by another; it is about enforcing the principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act, its Charters, the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law. The withdrawal of La Republique du Cameroun from the illegally occupied Southern Cameroons territory will not diminish the legal territory of La Republique; it will not change its recognized international boundaries; it will take absolutely nothing away from it!

Where is the Southern Cameroons, as a territory, located on the African map?

Source: Dr. Ngwang Ngumne: The Southern Cameroons, Misrule or Betrayal.

When people hear the term “Southern Cameroons”, they immediately think that it refers to the southern part of the Republic of Cameroun. No, the Southern Cameroons, the territory demanding the withdrawal of the Republic of Cameroun from its territory, is not and has never been a legal part of the Republic of Cameroun. The word “Southern” in the name “Southern Cameroons" refers to the Southern part of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom's Administration. The Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration was a non-contiguous territory, separated into a Northern and Southern part by a 64-kilometer stretch of land that was not part of its territory, and so it was practically divided, by the Administering Authority, into two: the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons, with each being recognised at the UN and treated in the same capacity as a separate Trust territory. It was by virtue of this recognition that the United Nations endorsed the two separate plebiscites held in Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons by the Administering Authority, even though the need for a plebiscite was itself questionable. It was also by virtue of this recognition that the Southern Cameroons went into negotiations with La Republique du Cameroun on the nature of the union which finally never took place. As a territory, the Southern Cameroons is located to the south east of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the south west of the Republic of Cameroun, as shown in the map above.

How did it happen? A brief presentation of the facts:
There is a certain danger in narration: narration prejudices the mind if we cannot draw the right logical conclusions from the facts alleged. This is why the courts are trained in drawing the right conclusions from narrations. When one listens to people arguing a matter, the side that has no proof for its case usually adopts the tactic of losing everyone in confused and lengthy narrations that cannot add up to proof. Another danger in narration is that facts are presented without being able to interpret them correctly or show their implication and impact, if any, on the problem that requires a solution. The Southern Cameroons question is one of those issues where because it is easy to lose the hearer in the thick and dark forest of lengthy narrations, the only way to have a handle on the matter is to focus on the proofs necessary to resolve it. The one question that the People of Southern Cameroons are asking LRC to answer is this: can LRC put on the table for the world to see any valid instrument of international law by which it is claiming jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons? This proof cannot be avoided, because LRC requires the international community to recognise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons. The only way the international community should do that is if the territory was acquired following the principles laid down by the international community. No country should lure the international community to become an accomplice to its violations of the principles laid down to promote peace and justice in the world by the same international community.

The facts:
Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Allied Forces decided to seize all German territories and to give them a completely new beginning under the new international system of the League of Nations. German Kamerun, one of the territories seized from Germany in Africa, was divided into two mandated territories through the Versailles Treaty, one placed under British administration and the other under the French administration. The Southern Cameroons belongs to the one under the British mandate.
After the Second World War, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and the system of mandates changed into the system of Trusts. On 13 December 1946, the United Kingdom signed a Trusteeship Agreement, with the United Nations, for the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration.
The purpose of creating Trust Territories was defined in Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter as being to lead the people of the trust territory to independence or self-government as the circumstances of each case might deman. Needless to say the fate of each Trust Territory was in no way linked in any UN instrument to that of another; each was pursuing its own destiny, each being equal to the other under international law.
Benefiting from this system of Trusts, French Cameroons, which was being administered by France under a separate Trusteeship Agreement, gained its independence on 1 January 1960.
The Cameroons under UK Administeration was divided into two parts, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons. In 1954 the Southern Cameroons gained self-government with a Prime Minister, constitutional government, a Parliament and its own state structures.
Nigeria, from which Southern Cameroons was being governed, gained independence on 1 October 1960, and in respect of the separate status of Southern Cameroons, it was no longer possible to rule it from that country. Therefore discussions began for the question of the independence of the Cameroons under UK administration.
Contrary to Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, the Administering Authority, the UK, decided, instead of granting independence, to organize two plebiscites, one in Northern Cameroons and one in Southern Cameroons. This was a shock, especially in view of the fact that the self-government of the Southern Cameroons was the last step to its independence and sovereignty.
The questions put in the Plebiscite to the People of Southern Cameroons were these: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon? OR “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?”
The People of Southern Cameroons voted by 7:3, to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria.
On April 21 1961, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1608 (XV) in which it recognized the results of the Plebiscite, called for a Post-plebiscite Conference between the Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to reach an agreement (treaty) by which the intentions expressed in the Plebiscite could be implemented. The passing of this Resolution was the last act of the United Nations on the Southern Cameroons!!!!
Unfortunately, because of lack of follow up by the United Nations and its Administering Authority, the UK, Resolution 1608(XV) was never implemented. Instead, a series of conspiracies took place through which instead of a Treaty of Union taking place between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern Cameroons was occupied by the Republic of Cameroun and the occupation thinly veiled with a so-called federation whose constitution was written by the Republic of Cameroun and imposed on the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN Trust Territory.
Short commentary on the facts:
As stated in the introduction to this part, without understanding the meaning and interpretation of various alleged events and facts, it would be difficult to get a handle on this story. The greatest point of misunderstanding has been the interpretation of the Plebiscite. Most people, as soon as the fact is acknowledged that there was a Plebiscite in which the People of Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun, rush to the conclusion that there was valid union. By what instrument or Act? Can two subjects of international law just merge informally and without any evidence to that effect? Even if, without evidence, anyone grants that the People of Southern Cameroons joined, should he also not grant that they can withdraw? Can valid consent be acknowledged only to say “Yes” but never again to say “No”? Clearly the People who are alleged to have the consent to say “yes” must also be able to say “No”, unless there is duress and fraud on them! In addition, political unions are not a way by which one people surrender or give away their territory and space of existence to another people. Consequently, even a political union would not have given the Cameroun Republic any sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons territory. Political unions are purely administrative conveniences!
The Plebiscite was essentially a dialogue between the United Nations and the People of Southern Cameroons, with the Republic of Cameroun having no part in it. Its result was simply the answer the people of Southern Cameroons gave to the United Nations in response to the question the United Nations had put to them. How could this answer, made to the United Nations, by the People of Southern Cameroons, in response to a question put to them by the United Nations become a treaty of Union, or even the implementation of the wish expressed in the answer, or even the Act of joining? No matter how we stretch our imagination, the Plebiscite could not be a Treaty of Union, the Act of joining or the achievement of independence.
It was precisely in recognition of the fact that what the people of Southern Cameroons said in the Plebiscite could not bind them to any third party that Resolution 1608(XV) was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 April 1961. It called for the Post-Plebiscite Conference and the working out of an agreement to implement the intentions of the parties. In other words, it recognised that the implementation of the Plebiscite results, through the signing of a valid international treaty, as was necessary between two subjects of international law (the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun), could only take place after the expression of the intention through the mechanism of the Plebiscite.
It is irrelevant by what means The Republic of Cameroun managed to occupy the Southern Cameroons without a valid instrument of international law: whether it was by bribing certain people in the Southern Cameroons, by the conspiracy of the Administering Authority, by duress or whatever, does not matter. All these conspiracies, intrigues or bribery or duress are separate crimes on their own, but they cannot validly transfer the territory and posterity of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun! No one can have a greater right to the territory of the Southern Cameroons than the people of Southern Cameroons!

Why can the people of Southern Cameroons not just accept to live together with the Republic of Cameroun in peace?

It is very easy for a person whose own people and country did not accept occupation and colonization, to now suggest to the people of Southern Cameroons to live with such a crime, for we have not yet learnt to treat with others as we would like to be treated! See the joy in the eyes of a free people; see how each country celebrates its national heroes and the day it achieved independence; see how fiercely every people defend their independence! If it is so sweet for everyone else, why not for the People of Southern Cameroons? How do you suggest to a person that he does not need a house of his own, while everyone else is fighting to have a house? These are some of the more pertinent reasons why the people of Southern Cameroons cannot simply live in peace with the invaders.
(1) Peace cannot be predicated without justice, without freedom, and in a situation in which one people’s territory and resources have been fraudulently seized by another people. Talking of living together may suggest that the two peoples, the people of Southern Cameroons and the People of the Republic of Cameroun, are disputing territory or space of existence. NO! The Republic of Cameroun has its own territory and way of life, which the People of Southern Cameroons are not disputing, but has left its own territory and crossed its recognised international borders to invade and occupy the territory of Southern Cameroons and imposed an alien way of life on it. Good fences make good neighbours; that is the best way it should be! Never suggest that the fence which separates two neighbours should be broken down so that they may live together in “peace”! It is the putting up of the fence that will bring peace and so-called living together.
(2) The nature of the human being and the nature of colonization make it impossible for the two to live together. On the one hand, human nature is self-determining; that is, no one wants to surrender his own life and house to his neighbour no matter how poor or unable he may be. No people too want to surrender their homeland and space of existence to another people. Each one wants to be his own master in his own house and on his own territory. Isn’t it surprising that one people think they know the value of territory, freedom and self-determination, but the people they occupy should not know? If a homeland and territory are so good for the colonial master, why should it not be for the occupied peoples who are also human beings?
(3) The nature of colonization too makes it impossible: colonization is armed robbery and rape of the highest type, committed by one people against another. It does and can only live on the use of arms, because it is an imposition! Because the people who have been fraudulently or wrongfully occupied will resist it, the only way colonization can maintain itself is through violence, intimidation, force, arrests, torture, extra-judicial killings, and the bribing of consciences. No beautiful public speeches and sweet talk about democracy and freedoms or development can change its inherent nature to be like this. Only foreigners separated by distance or people being bribed to collaborate can fail to see this. Colonisation is always suspicious that the people it has wrongfully occupied will recover their freedom at the first opportunity, and so from this suspicion is ever prompt to suppress. It is also a system of exploitation, because the first reason for seizing other peoples’ territory is always economic; to develop your own country and impoverish the colonized peoples! Therefore in all situations of colonization, the colonized peoples are being underdeveloped; a master and servant relationship always exists. Whatever superficial dazzles are used to cover up these facts, they are only like a beautiful body covering a cancer underneath.
(4) Colonisation is a crime against humanity. To remotely suggest that some people should accept it is an insult to their humanity, especially to Africa which fought it for so long. To make such a suggestion is to empower the colonial master to do as it likes with those who, from their higher human nature, cannot accept to be subdued by colonisation. What will happen in that case is that relying on such support from the international community, nationalists will quickly be styled by the colonial master as rebels, secessionists, terrorists, trouble-makers, disgruntled few, so as to kill them for daring to question the legality of its presence on their territory. Another danger of bargaining with the devil of colonisation is that such bargains must always come back to haunt us. Therefore the international community must never suggest such a thing, because it only blesses more violence, impunity and a reign of terror from the colonial regime. The answer to colonization has never been a suggestion to live with it!
(5) The absence of justice. Colonisation by definition is armed robbery and rape all combined, and none of them tolerates resistance or opposition of any kind. They are things that can only be done by violence, not through consent. Therefore in the eyes of a colonial regime, it is never right to oppose its occupation, and therefore there can never be any justice also for those who question that occupation; the courts and the whole system will be instruments to promote that occupation! Nationalists of the country or territory occupied are therefore the natural enemies of colonization, even if kangaroo trials are organised to deceive the world. Since nationalists will never accept colonisation, to suggest that the occupied people should live with colonization is to deprive its nationalists (who are the more noble and more developed members of its population) of justice altogether, because the colonial regime is their natural enemy.
(6) There are people who because they themselves do not know what is called the cancer of colonization, find it easy to suggest that the People of Southern Cameroons should patch up with it; that the problem can be cured with good governance, decentralization and so on. This is an argument that was buried with Africa’s own fight for decolonization. At that time, many Africans argued that everything would fall into ruin; Africans were not yet ripe to govern themselves, that colonial masters governed Africans better than they would govern themselves and so on. These arguments never succeeded. Quite simply, and to put it crudely, it is better to eat your own shit than someone else’s own! The problems of colonization or external domination are a very different order of problems altogether from whatever internal problems a people may have. The problems you have in your own house are different from the problems imposed on you by a neighbour who has occupied your house. When Southern Cameroons was taken over, the first thing the colonial regime did was to shut down all its airports, wharfs, hydro-electric plants, banks and wipe out all economic infrastructure! Even the archives were seized and a large part of it forcefully carried to Yaounde! It then embarked on the wiping off from memory of every trace of the previous existence of Southern Cameroons: names of towns were changed; the flag changed; even the Plebiscite day was renamed to “Youth Day”; the unilateral federation which had been imposed to deceive the international community and fold the eyes of the inattentive Southern Cameroonians was abolished; the name of the country was progressively changed to the name The Republic of Cameroun had before its independence: La Republique du Cameroun. The two parts of the Southern Cameroons carved out into provinces of the colonial country were not linked by road and to go to each part, the roads go through La Republique du Cameroun! There has been systematic underdevelopment of the Southern Cameroons, even though the oil from which La Republique du Cameroun gets its money is from the Southern Cameroons. We say in our dialect that when you take a child's groundnuts, at least give him the peelings: in our case, not even the peelings have been given the People of Southern Cameroons!
(7) Finally, no one can have a greater right to the territory of Southern Cameroons than the People of Southern Cameroons themselves, and no one should be allowed to exercise such right. The People of Southern Cameroons are not claiming even a blade of grass from La Republque du Cameroun; all they are asking is that La Republique should withdraw from their territory to its own. No one loses anything in this withdrawal; instead peace, better relations and a new air of relief is restored for everyone. Freedom and Africa are the winners.


How does the Southern Cameroons Question offend African unity and integration?
In this part of the article we shall examine the soundness of the position that to restore the international personality of the Southern Cameroons by re-asserting its international borders and asking the Republic of Cameroon to withdraw to the borders recognized to it under the African Union Constitutive Act, the United Nations Charter and International Law in general, is contrary to African integration and unity.
As stated above, the Southern Cameroons Question cannot be discussed in a vacuum and out of context, and thus make our unverified and untested opinions the law on the matter. It can only be discussed within the context of international principles and the principles of African integration and union!
Once it is placed within the context of international law and African Union principles in particular, the question naturally arises: what are the principles of African integration, as laid down in any African Union text, that the People of Southern Cameroons are violating by asking La Republique du Cameroun to honour its treaty obligations to respect its borders as stipulated under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act? We cannot allege a contravention of African integration without being able to cite a single principle of integration that has been violated. The People of Southern Cameroons are backing their case by a list of the various principles of integration and Union that La Republique du Cameroun is violating with respect to the Southern Cameroons People and their territory. Let anyone who challenges their case do the same!
The principles of African Integration and Union
African Unity and Integration are not what each individual may think they are; it is not a matter of private persuasion or individual opinion. All the principles that are intended to promote the unity of Africa or its union are enshrined in its various governing texts, chief among which are the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The existence of these collectively-agreed-upon principles means that no one shall be allowed to talk about African problems and disputes without basing their position or opinion on these fundamental texts! It means that as long as African problems are being resolved on the basis of those principles, African Unity is being promoted and safeguarded! Any attempt to ignore these texts and talk about African problems from private persuasions and individual motives, whether considered as political or not, is to sow more conflicts in Africa! So-called political reasons that are not founded on collective principles enshrined in the fundamental texts of the Union are incapable of promoting peace and African Unity, especially in the long-run. The persistent attempt to override existing texts and principles with private opinion merely because one is in a position of power is an evil that is killing justice and the rule of law among the very people who are called upon to uphold the collective principles that should govern the peaceful relations between African peoples. All those called upon to resolve African problems are under an obligation not to express an opinion which is not founded on the fundamental texts collectively laid down to promote African Unity and resolve African problems. If they do so, they should indeed be held to be agents of conflicts on the Continent! So much injustice, conflicts and evils continue on the continent because those called upon to uphold the collective principles of unity do not feel themselves under any obligation to uphold those principles and are never held accountable for expressing opinions and taking positions which are not based on the fundamental texts of the Union. Everyone is at liberty to ignore the principles of the Union and talk about issues on the basis of their private persuasions! And then when conflicts arise, they come and make more speeches and promise never to see more Rwandas again. All the time however, their attitudes are just grooming more conflicts.
With regard to the Southern Cameroons Question, the fundamental texts which contain the violations that the Republic of Cameroun is being charged with are the OAU Charter (Article 2); the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b); and the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:
Articles 19: All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Article 21(1): All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people de deprived of it.
Article 22(1): All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
Article 23(1): All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. The principles of solidarity and friendly relations implicitly affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirmed by that of the Organisation of African Unity shall govern relations between states.
Article 24(1): All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

Eradicating colonization in all its forms:
Those who argue that liberation struggles and the demand for an end to colonization is contrary to African unity must have a very curious idea of unity. The Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, was founded principally to end colonization in all its forms on the African continent (Article 2, OAU Charter). The mistaken idea that prevails among some people is to think that the colonization that the OAU was set up to fight was only the colonization of Africa by foreigners and not also the colonization of Africans by Africans. Colonisation as a crime against humanity does not distinguish between who is colonized and who is colonizing. Africans are certainly part of humanity! All colonization has the same motives and behaves in the same criminal way and commits the same crimes. As the highest form of armed robbery and rape, it lives only on the use of force, violence, intimidation, the buying of consciences and fraud, for it knows that the rightful owners can NEVER voluntarily surrender their life, land, resources, and posterity to another people.
Dangers of turning integration and union into an ideology
At all times, we should bear in mind the crimes ideologies have promoted. The danger of turning the quest for integration and union into an ideology is that like all ideologies, people will begin to think that the same crimes that the ideology is meant to eradicate can be committed in the name of the ideology; people begin to think that the methods by which the ideology is achieved do not matter! Yet, what separates evil and good are the methods of each! We cannot achieve integration and union by tolerating the crimes that integration and union are meant to eradicate!
A wrong definition of the Southern Cameroons Question:
Part of the argument that the Southern Cameroons Question is against African integration and unity may have stemmed from a wrong understanding or misinterpretation of what the Southern Cameroons problem is. The Southern Cameroons problem may have been wrongly understood as a minority problem; a domestic problem; a linguistic problem; a question of secession or even the break-up of a state. Now, it is clear that it is none of these. After reading the definition of the Southern Cameroons Question as presented in this article, this initial opinion should now change. At the very least, the right attitude is not to fear to hear the facts and start passing judgment, but to seek full disclosure of the facts of this extraordinary story. Only through full and complete investigation of the facts of this story can its truth be established and the problem resolved in a lasting way.
Fear of further fragmentation of Africa
Another fear of people who see the Southern Cameroons Question as a threat to African integration and unity is, as stated above, that the birth of more states will lead to the further fragmentation of Africa. These are speculative fears which are not based on a hearing of the facts of the Southern Cameroons case at all. Such generalized speculation does the injustice of lumping all cases together, although the only way to treat each case is to hear its own facts first. Each case must be treated on its own merits. If the facts of one case are tested against international principles and they pass, that is no guarantee that every other case will pass the test. Therefore this fear is prejudicial and unfounded.
This fear also suggests that African integration can justify illegal territorial acquisition, the promotion of colonisation or the injustice of one person taking over his neighbour's house on the pretext that he is doing so for tribal unity! Or that the cure to the territorial fragmentation of Africa is through the perpetuation of existing injustices or the unavowed approval of territorial theft. The big idea here is that we want to create a larger territorial unit called an integrated or united Africa through fraud or the turning of a blind eye to the practices of fraud by one African people against another! In such a case, countries that use overt force or illegal and fraudulent means to occupy territory belonging to other people would just become agents of integration, although they themselves are not grabbing their neighbours’ territories in order to turn it over to the Union! Who will buy such an ideology of integration behind which there is hidden promotion of crimes and injustices? Where have we kept our memory of history to see that all previous empires created through this method have collapsed? Quite simply, this is a perversion of the principles of the African Union.
The extreme argument
In the extreme, it can be argued that almost all present African States were created through colonization and force, so why can't the same process be used by African States to enlarge their boundaries or subjugate other African peoples? After all, this is how all empires and even most states were formed! This, in fact seems to be the subconscious argument in the minds of those who think that a blind eye should be turned to countries which are using force to prevent those African peoples whose territories have been colonized by other African countries from gaining their independence. But let us ask ourselves these questions: (1) For whose good will that be, that of the colonizers or the colonized? (2) What is this dogma and hypnotic idea about forming larger entities? (3) If they are formed by conquest, wouldn’t they be kept only by force and more crimes on those who have been conquered?; (4) Is such an idea not a desire to turn back the hands of the clock from all the progress mankind has made in rejecting the law of the jungle and instituting principles of international law governing the relations between peoples and the methods of territorial acquisition? All one needs to say to counter such an argument is this: If Africans have now decided that colonization is no more a crime, let them so inform the rest of the world and stop using the argument of their own colonization to their advantage. How can colonization, which African leaders condemn on a daily basis in their speeches, suddenly become so acceptable because it is being committed by Africans against other Africans? All colonization comes with the same crimes, and how can Africa today say that it is willing to promote those crimes by Africans against Africans, for the sake of unity? We say that we are creating a union in order to help free the African from the crimes and bondage that he has been subject to, both at national level, and from foreign occupation. How then can these same crimes be promoted for the sake of that union? Africa should in this case hail colonization for helping to unify Africa, and stop accusing colonization for Africa's backwardness in every domain. We can therefore see that even such an extreme argument does not hold water.
Argument against the recognition of more states in Africa
The argument that the recognition of more States emerging from colonisation is against African unity is bizarre, seeing that the OAU's principal goal was to welcome more African countries into its fold as they emerged from colonization. How is admitting a new member who has been liberated from European colonization different from admitting a new member who has been liberated from the colonization of another African State? Welcoming Southern Cameroons into its fold as a new member liberated from the colonization of La Republique du Cameroun has just the same liberating and joyous effect as what happened when those African countries liberated from European colonization were welcomed into the OAU!
The fear of the birth of new states also suggests that a union of fewer states will be stronger than a union of more states. What is the basis of the suggestion that a union of 54 states is less united or less strong than one of 53 states? Isn't it variety and specialization that makes for perfection and therefore perfection increases with numbers? A union of states in conflict is far less efficient and more unstable than a union with peaceful states. The more conflicts there are within States, especially conflicts arising from colonization, the more it is only a matter of time for the union to spend its energies on wars and conflicts instead of on development.
The kinds of arguments that oppose the birth of more States give an opportunity to state this truth: that the dynamics and laws that lead to the birth and death of States have not ceased to operate because we are in the 21st century or because we have formed the African Union. Anyone who cares should observe that the number of States in the world has never ceased to increase; it is only increasing. And it will only continue to increase as individual freedom and the freedom of expression of presently oppressed peoples increases. In addition, the jungle law of might will have no place in the future of humanity; justice, truth and voluntary relinquishing of what is wrong will mean that we will see a break up of many present States, thus changing the map of the world in ways which we can now little expect! Even more beautiful is the fact that after their liberation, these states, seeing and working for their own greater good in bigger entities, will voluntarily accept to be part of Union as we have seen with Europe or Africa! There is no need to resist this trend, which is only for the greater good of mankind and of all its peoples.


A united and integrated Africa is not another empire to be built on fraud and territorial theft. All former empires collapsed because they were built through force and injustices. All illegal territorial acquisition, to build larger countries, like empires were built, simply sows new seeds of future disintegration, because human nature will never accept those injustices. This is why the principle of self-determination is a universal principle. It is because mankind has recognized that no country built on theft, force and injustices can last that the method by which unions, integration and unity is built today is by voluntary and mutual consent. If it is even remotely suggested that African integration is secretly based on a belief in injustice and fraud, no country will buy into it anymore! It is also clear that there will be no reason to respect justice or any law in such entities created through fraud and theft by those who were able to do so! These unconscious or premeditated tendencies of trying to create larger territorial units by fraud and injustice, or by turning a blind eye to them, are the same tendencies that Africa has continued to condemn in the European colonization of Africa. How can Africa be heard to be contemplating the same methods and acts? This is imperialism calling itself integration! These things enable us to see at what level our minds are and why we continue to create conflicts in the name of solving them.
CONCLUSION

Building one world is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process. Each people will come to accept the idea of a larger union only at their own good time as the illusions and fears they hold are conquered by the evidence of their own higher good in the larger unions which they may join. If we are impatient about this, inevitably we will seek to bypass the consent of those involved, and that is the beginning of future trouble because the people have not inwardly come to recognition of their own good in a larger union, but have been forced, precipitated or deceived into it.
African unity is like world unity, like family unity, or tribal unity. If the world cannot be united by subordinating and colonising other parts of the world, then Africa cannot be united by promoting colonization among its peoples and countries. How many African countries while they were struggling to free themselves from colonization would have listened to the argument that colonization was for the unity of the world? Today, Africa, through the African Union, is struggling to unite itself and assert its independence; is this against the unity of the world? How then can the fight for the people of Southern Cameroons to assert themselves and recover their territory long swindled from them be against the unity of Africa? No one unites the tribe by occupying the house of his neighbours or by instituting forced marriages! Unity is not slavery; it can never be! The sooner our ideas of union and unity are clarified, the better it will be for Africa, because these arguments betray horrendous obscurities from which most of Africa's conflicts are generated by those who have been appointed to foster unity. It is curious to note the divergence between the private persuasions of those who are called upon to work for Africa’s unity and the fundamental principles enshrined in the basic texts that have been collectively laid down to promote unity in Africa and govern the peaceful relations between its peoples!
In law, it is said that there is no agreement unless there is a meeting of minds. Therefore unity can be achieved only through agreement and therefore through greater freedom and greater justice in accordance with the principles entrenched in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Union's various governing texts. Colonisation is destructive of union, because it is destructive of any agreement. Where there is no justice, no freedom, no transparency, no full disclosure, there can be no agreement and therefore also no union or integration.
By seeking justice and restitution of their territory from which they have been wrongfully swindled, the people of Southern Cameroons are not going against African integration and unity. On the contrary, they are promoting it by invoking the principles on which integration and union are founded. And if it became necessary in the future for each people to turn over their territories for the purpose of integration or union, the territory would be turned over, not to a neighbour trying to swindle more territory for itself, but to the Union. The People of Southern Cameroons believe that African integration is built on consent; full and transparent disclosure of its goals and the methods to attain them; on the fact that integration and union embody mechanisms for justice, common good and values that could not be achieved otherwise and therefore which will attract all African peoples to voluntarily join because they see their own higher good in it.
However long colonization may last, it will never make the colonized country and territory a legal part of the colonizing country. This is why African countries were able, after, in some cases centuries, to still reassert their right to their own existence and sovereign independence. What establishes and proves colonization in modern history is the method by which the territory under dispute was acquired. The illegal acquisition of territory and the subjugation of one people by another are condemned world-wide and in all international legal instruments and declarations. In the case of the colonization of the Southern Cameroons by the Republic of Cameroun, colonization is conclusively proved by the fact that there is no Treaty of Union between the Republic of Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons and there is no International Treaty by which the boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon have been extended from what they were at the attainment of its independence on January 1 1960 (when the Southern Cameroons was still a UN Trust Territory), to now include the territory of the Southern Cameroons. Add to this the fact that the People of Southern Cameroons reject the rule of La Republique du Cameroun over their territory and are demanding that such illegal rule come to an immediate end. All narrations, however intricate, which cannot produce the proofs that La Republique du Cameroun’s jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons is founded on International Law, are of no avail. Secondly, colonization is also proved beyond doubt by the manner in which the colonized people are treated with respect to their struggle to assert their own independent existence. Colonial regimes live on intimidation, arrests, torture and imprisonment of liberation fighters, and on the buying of the consciences of those known in history as "collaborators"; they can never dare to face justice, law and truth! In the case of the Southern Cameroons' struggle, the colonial regime is so terrified of the truth that it has never for once accepted to sit down with the various liberation movements to discuss the matter, despite the numerous calls for dialogue. Instead, counting on its guns and prisons, it has arrested, tortured and imprisoned many Southern Cameroonians merely for daring to question the legal grounds of the colonial regime's pretended jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons.
Those who raise the argument that the recognition of new States or the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their peoples is contrary to African unity only thereby expose their own grave ignorance of the principles of Union entrenched in the governing texts of the African Union, as well as their enormous oblivion to the one fundamental trend of human history, which is that freedom is the future of mankind. Africa was able to free itself only because it insisted on the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their recognition as new states! If some people think union can be achieved through the promotion of colonization, then let them put it down as a union principle!
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the Southern Cameeroons case is founded entirely on African Union principles and that the case can be resolved only by upholding those principles. Not one principle of Union can be shown to have been violated by the people of Southern Cameroons. It does not help Africa to lay down beautiful principles and then shy away from applying them when the injustices that can only be resolved by applying those principles are brought to light. The courage to uphold African Union principles will determine whether Africa will come out of conflicts or will sink further into them.

William

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS QUESTION AND AFRICAN UNITY


Introduction:

Whenever the Southern Cameroons Question is raised, there are always spontaneous reactions to it, either in the form of wondering why such an unbelievable story has so far not come to light, or in the form of expressing the opinion that any demands which lead to the birth of more states in Africa is against African integration, because it fragments Africa into more states and thereby weakens it, or the fear is expressed that a new trend for such demands may be set in motion.
These spontaneous fears and reactions are quite understandable, if we consider how human beings always first react to certain situations. Human beings are by nature conservative and fear anything which seems to change the status quo known to them too much, whether it be new technology, social changes or not. Most of the things that mankind afterwards enjoyed, worshiped and fights for, it at first resisted with all its might! The birth of new states is no exception.
The other question that often arises is why people don’t hear about the case. The reason is quite simple: because the People of Southern Cameroons have not resorted to slaughtering yet! The system of the world is such that violence has become the preferred method of putting problems on the agenda of the international community, for without violence, the international community is deaf and dumb to issues of justice. So far however, the people of Southern Cameroons have refrained from slaughter, no matter how much the silence of the African Union and other conflict resolution bodies is suggesting that they too take up arms so that their problem may be heard and addressed as a “conflict”. On the contrary, the People of Southern Cameroons see that their case is so overwhelmingly strong that they have decided to challenge it, so far, by a total reliance on the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Their current motto is: “The Force of Argument and Not the Argument of Force”. It is up to the African Union whether it will uphold its own principles or will, by indifference to them, make violence and slaughter the only option left. We can always say that there shall never be another Rwanda again, but adopt positions that bring about more of them, isn't it? Since those who are called upon to uphold the principles of integration and union are not currently held accountable for their actions, they can always earn their salaries while through their silence encourage more conflicts and more genocides! It will be easy after such genocides have happened through their silence on African Union principles, to make more beautiful speeches about the high principles of peace, early warning systems, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, conflict prevention mechanisms, and so on!!! Who cares what they mean and whether they mean anything at all! Not once have African Union reports on conflicts mentioned the Southern Cameroons Question, although the relevant organs of the Union have been duly seized of the conflict. The great challenge facing us with regards to the Southern Cameroons Question is therefore whether the African Union will allow the matter to be settled peacefully or whether it must engineer another Rwanda through its current attitude of indifference to the principles that are meant to bring peace to Africa!
The spontaneous reactions of saying that the Southern Cameroons Question threatens African integration harbour the danger that those who express them do so in a vacuum and out of context, in the sense that, they forget altogether that the principles guiding African integration have been laid down by common consent; that there are United Nations and international principles governing the relations between peoples, issues of territorial acquisition, the freedoms and rights that all peoples are entitled to enjoy; the crimes that no people may commit against another, and so on. It is these principles that govern the context within which all countries and people operate and interact. If our spontaneous reactions are not to become the law, we must always examine complaints and conflicts in the light of the principles we have laid down to govern the relations between peoples.
The history of the world also shows that these initial spontaneous reactions are neither justified nor in accordance with history. History shows that no matter how much we have disliked divorces, they still happen and they are healthy for partners who cannot live with each other and therefore healthy for mankind as a whole; the history of the world shows that no matter how we have resisted the birth of new states, the number of states in the world is ever increasing and never reducing; the history of the world shows that what makes for unity is not conversion of the whole world into one country (as emperors attempted to do), but greater understanding between peoples and common principles that guide our humanity; and finally history shows that the future of mankind is not bondage but freedom in all its forms. Unity is in the meeting of minds and history shows that with time, even enemy peoples voluntarily come together! The inner workings of nature that lead to the birth of new states will not stop because mankind is in the 21st Century. On the contrary, since injustices always take time to be uncovered, and freedom and justice are only increasing, more injustices will be uncovered which will lead to the birth of more new states! This is not wrong, but accords entirely with justice and freedom, the most fundamental yearnings of the human being. We can predict the birth of more new states with great confidence because the world we know today was not shaped through justice and freedom but through force, intrigues, injustice and the rule of might. As mankind finally comes to the realisation that force, intrigues and injustices cannot create a better world, no matter how few the number of states it creates, our method of achieving unity will change from physical force, injustices and intrigues to consensus-building, the promotion of justice and freedoms as we see with the European Union. The same principle by which Africa is asserting itself in the world through the African Union is the same principle at work in the Southern Cameroons Question where a people long stifled and wrongly swindled of their own space of existence on earth are seeking justice and restitution!
The birth of new states is fundamentally anchored in mankind’s unquenchable need for freedom, the protection of identity, the self-preservation of peoples who see themselves as a one, and most important of all, justice. When we protect these principles, we cannot go wrong, no matter what happens in the short-run!

What is the Southern Cameroons Question?
The Southern Cameroons Question is the following: Does the Republic of Cameroun have jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons? If yes, on what instrument of international law is such jurisdiction founded? The Southern Cameroons Question is therefore a territorial dispute between the People of Southern Cameroons on the one hand, and the Republic of Cameroun on the other hand, arising from what in the eyes of the People of Southern Cameroons, is the illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons’ territory by the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Southern Cameroons demand that The Republic of Cameroun should honour its treaty obligations under the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b)) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 19, 20(1), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1)), by withdrawing from the territory of Southern Cameroons to its internationally recognised boundaries.
Under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, no other boundaries are recognized, both by the signatory state and the African Union, to any party to that Act, than the boundaries each signatory State inherited at independence. Under Articles Article 19 of the ACHPR, All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. Under Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.

The Southern Cameroons question is thus primarily an international territorial dispute and secondarily the crime of the subjugation of the People of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun. As a territorial dispute, the People of Southern Cameroons are calling on The Republic of Cameroun to prove to the African Union and the international community, its claimed title of sovereignty to the Southern Cameroons territory, and calling for United Nations and African Union provisions on territorial matters to be enforced.
When the Southern Cameroons question is presented in the more general terms of a demand for independence or self-determination, misunderstandings are introduced into it, because no one then knows whether the people seeking independence or self-determination are merely a minority within a legally constituted part of a sovereign state who want to secede by invoking their right to self-determination, or whether these are a people with their own international territory who have been occupied from outside by another state. Presenting the case under the demand for independence and self-determination also confuses the Southern Cameroons Question with the case of territories that had no recognized status under international law, no internationally recognised boundaries prior their occupation by the country from which they demand independence, or which had not known any modern representative government.
The Southern Cameroons’s case does not fall under any of the above sub cases of independence and self-determination. The boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not created by The Republic of Cameroun; nor is the Southern Cameroons a part of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroun is a neighbouring country to Southern Cameroons that used historical circumstances and tricks to occupy Southern Cameroons. The Southern Cameroons, as part of the League of Nations’ mandate of The Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration, acquired international personality as from the moment it became a League of Nations Mandate and subsequently a United Nations Trust Territory under the Trusteeship Agreement signed between Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and the United Nations on the other hand. It achieved self-government in 1954, had a constitution, a constitutional government, internationally recognized boundaries safeguarded with international treaties, a Prime Minister, a Parliament, its own Government structures and was preparing for independence, when in 1961, through events that will become clear as the case is unfolded, it was occupied by The Republic of Cameroun, with no paper signed, no agreement and no instrument of International Law whatsoever!
It should be stated clearly at the outset therefore that the Southern Cameroons question is not about creating a new State out of another one; it is not about breaking up a State; it is not about carving one country out of another; it is not about secession; it is not about a minority within a state seeking self-determination or independence because it is dissatisfied with its treatment. It is about ending the illegal occupation of one country by another; it is about resolving a territorial dispute between two subjects of international law; it is about territorial restitution; it is about decolonization; it is about freeing a colonized and subjugated people and giving them back their freedom; it is about correcting international fraud and theft of one people's territory, country and space of existence by another; it is about enforcing the principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act, its Charters, the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law. The withdrawal of La Republique du Cameroun from the illegally occupied Southern Cameroons territory will not diminish the legal territory of La Republique; it will not change its recognized international boundaries; it will take absolutely nothing away from it!

Where is the Southern Cameroons, as a territory, located on the African map?

Source: Dr. Ngwang Ngumne: The Southern Cameroons, Misrule or Betrayal.

When people hear the term “Southern Cameroons”, they immediately think that it refers to the southern part of the Republic of Cameroun. No, the Southern Cameroons, the territory demanding the withdrawal of the Republic of Cameroun from its territory, is not and has never been a legal part of the Republic of Cameroun. The word “Southern” in the name “Southern Cameroons" refers to the Southern part of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom's Administration. The Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration was a non-contiguous territory, separated into a Northern and Southern part by a 64-kilometer stretch of land that was not part of its territory, and so it was practically divided, by the Administering Authority, into two: the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons, with each being recognised at the UN and treated in the same capacity as a separate Trust territory. It was by virtue of this recognition that the United Nations endorsed the two separate plebiscites held in Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons by the Administering Authority, even though the need for a plebiscite was itself questionable. It was also by virtue of this recognition that the Southern Cameroons went into negotiations with La Republique du Cameroun on the nature of the union which finally never took place. As a territory, the Southern Cameroons is located to the south east of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the south west of the Republic of Cameroun, as shown in the map above.

How did it happen? A brief presentation of the facts:
There is a certain danger in narration: narration prejudices the mind if we cannot draw the right logical conclusions from the facts alleged. This is why the courts are trained in drawing the right conclusions from narrations. When one listens to people arguing a matter, the side that has no proof for its case usually adopts the tactic of losing everyone in confused and lengthy narrations that cannot add up to proof. Another danger in narration is that facts are presented without being able to interpret them correctly or show their implication and impact, if any, on the problem that requires a solution. The Southern Cameroons question is one of those issues where because it is easy to lose the hearer in the thick and dark forest of lengthy narrations, the only way to have a handle on the matter is to focus on the proofs necessary to resolve it. The one question that the People of Southern Cameroons are asking LRC to answer is this: can LRC put on the table for the world to see any valid instrument of international law by which it is claiming jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons? This proof cannot be avoided, because LRC requires the international community to recognise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons. The only way the international community should do that is if the territory was acquired following the principles laid down by the international community. No country should lure the international community to become an accomplice to its violations of the principles laid down to promote peace and justice in the world by the same international community.

The facts:
Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Allied Forces decided to seize all German territories and to give them a completely new beginning under the new international system of the League of Nations. German Kamerun, one of the territories seized from Germany in Africa, was divided into two mandated territories through the Versailles Treaty, one placed under British administration and the other under the French administration. The Southern Cameroons belongs to the one under the British mandate.
After the Second World War, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and the system of mandates changed into the system of Trusts. On 13 December 1946, the United Kingdom signed a Trusteeship Agreement, with the United Nations, for the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration.
The purpose of creating Trust Territories was defined in Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter as being to lead the people of the trust territory to independence or self-government as the circumstances of each case might deman. Needless to say the fate of each Trust Territory was in no way linked in any UN instrument to that of another; each was pursuing its own destiny, each being equal to the other under international law.
Benefiting from this system of Trusts, French Cameroons, which was being administered by France under a separate Trusteeship Agreement, gained its independence on 1 January 1960.
The Cameroons under UK Administeration was divided into two parts, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons. In 1954 the Southern Cameroons gained self-government with a Prime Minister, constitutional government, a Parliament and its own state structures.
Nigeria, from which Southern Cameroons was being governed, gained independence on 1 October 1960, and in respect of the separate status of Southern Cameroons, it was no longer possible to rule it from that country. Therefore discussions began for the question of the independence of the Cameroons under UK administration.
Contrary to Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, the Administering Authority, the UK, decided, instead of granting independence, to organize two plebiscites, one in Northern Cameroons and one in Southern Cameroons. This was a shock, especially in view of the fact that the self-government of the Southern Cameroons was the last step to its independence and sovereignty.
The questions put in the Plebiscite to the People of Southern Cameroons were these: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon? OR “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?”
The People of Southern Cameroons voted by 7:3, to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria.
On April 21 1961, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1608 (XV) in which it recognized the results of the Plebiscite, called for a Post-plebiscite Conference between the Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to reach an agreement (treaty) by which the intentions expressed in the Plebiscite could be implemented. The passing of this Resolution was the last act of the United Nations on the Southern Cameroons!!!!
Unfortunately, because of lack of follow up by the United Nations and its Administering Authority, the UK, Resolution 1608(XV) was never implemented. Instead, a series of conspiracies took place through which instead of a Treaty of Union taking place between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern Cameroons was occupied by the Republic of Cameroun and the occupation thinly veiled with a so-called federation whose constitution was written by the Republic of Cameroun and imposed on the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN Trust Territory.
Short commentary on the facts:
As stated in the introduction to this part, without understanding the meaning and interpretation of various alleged events and facts, it would be difficult to get a handle on this story. The greatest point of misunderstanding has been the interpretation of the Plebiscite. Most people, as soon as the fact is acknowledged that there was a Plebiscite in which the People of Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun, rush to the conclusion that there was valid union. By what instrument or Act? Can two subjects of international law just merge informally and without any evidence to that effect? Even if, without evidence, anyone grants that the People of Southern Cameroons joined, should he also not grant that they can withdraw? Can valid consent be acknowledged only to say “Yes” but never again to say “No”? Clearly the People who are alleged to have the consent to say “yes” must also be able to say “No”, unless there is duress and fraud on them! In addition, political unions are not a way by which one people surrender or give away their territory and space of existence to another people. Consequently, even a political union would not have given the Cameroun Republic any sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons territory. Political unions are purely administrative conveniences!
The Plebiscite was essentially a dialogue between the United Nations and the People of Southern Cameroons, with the Republic of Cameroun having no part in it. Its result was simply the answer the people of Southern Cameroons gave to the United Nations in response to the question the United Nations had put to them. How could this answer, made to the United Nations, by the People of Southern Cameroons, in response to a question put to them by the United Nations become a treaty of Union, or even the implementation of the wish expressed in the answer, or even the Act of joining? No matter how we stretch our imagination, the Plebiscite could not be a Treaty of Union, the Act of joining or the achievement of independence.
It was precisely in recognition of the fact that what the people of Southern Cameroons said in the Plebiscite could not bind them to any third party that Resolution 1608(XV) was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 April 1961. It called for the Post-Plebiscite Conference and the working out of an agreement to implement the intentions of the parties. In other words, it recognised that the implementation of the Plebiscite results, through the signing of a valid international treaty, as was necessary between two subjects of international law (the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun), could only take place after the expression of the intention through the mechanism of the Plebiscite.
It is irrelevant by what means The Republic of Cameroun managed to occupy the Southern Cameroons without a valid instrument of international law: whether it was by bribing certain people in the Southern Cameroons, by the conspiracy of the Administering Authority, by duress or whatever, does not matter. All these conspiracies, intrigues or bribery or duress are separate crimes on their own, but they cannot validly transfer the territory and posterity of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun! No one can have a greater right to the territory of the Southern Cameroons than the people of Southern Cameroons!

Why can the people of Southern Cameroons not just accept to live together with the Republic of Cameroun in peace?

It is very easy for a person whose own people and country did not accept occupation and colonization, to now suggest to the people of Southern Cameroons to live with such a crime, for we have not yet learnt to treat with others as we would like to be treated! See the joy in the eyes of a free people; see how each country celebrates its national heroes and the day it achieved independence; see how fiercely every people defend their independence! If it is so sweet for everyone else, why not for the People of Southern Cameroons? How do you suggest to a person that he does not need a house of his own, while everyone else is fighting to have a house? These are some of the more pertinent reasons why the people of Southern Cameroons cannot simply live in peace with the invaders.
(1) Peace cannot be predicated without justice, without freedom, and in a situation in which one people’s territory and resources have been fraudulently seized by another people. Talking of living together may suggest that the two peoples, the people of Southern Cameroons and the People of the Republic of Cameroun, are disputing territory or space of existence. NO! The Republic of Cameroun has its own territory and way of life, which the People of Southern Cameroons are not disputing, but has left its own territory and crossed its recognised international borders to invade and occupy the territory of Southern Cameroons and imposed an alien way of life on it. Good fences make good neighbours; that is the best way it should be! Never suggest that the fence which separates two neighbours should be broken down so that they may live together in “peace”! It is the putting up of the fence that will bring peace and so-called living together.
(2) The nature of the human being and the nature of colonization make it impossible for the two to live together. On the one hand, human nature is self-determining; that is, no one wants to surrender his own life and house to his neighbour no matter how poor or unable he may be. No people too want to surrender their homeland and space of existence to another people. Each one wants to be his own master in his own house and on his own territory. Isn’t it surprising that one people think they know the value of territory, freedom and self-determination, but the people they occupy should not know? If a homeland and territory are so good for the colonial master, why should it not be for the occupied peoples who are also human beings?
(3) The nature of colonization too makes it impossible: colonization is armed robbery and rape of the highest type, committed by one people against another. It does and can only live on the use of arms, because it is an imposition! Because the people who have been fraudulently or wrongfully occupied will resist it, the only way colonization can maintain itself is through violence, intimidation, force, arrests, torture, extra-judicial killings, and the bribing of consciences. No beautiful public speeches and sweet talk about democracy and freedoms or development can change its inherent nature to be like this. Only foreigners separated by distance or people being bribed to collaborate can fail to see this. Colonisation is always suspicious that the people it has wrongfully occupied will recover their freedom at the first opportunity, and so from this suspicion is ever prompt to suppress. It is also a system of exploitation, because the first reason for seizing other peoples’ territory is always economic; to develop your own country and impoverish the colonized peoples! Therefore in all situations of colonization, the colonized peoples are being underdeveloped; a master and servant relationship always exists. Whatever superficial dazzles are used to cover up these facts, they are only like a beautiful body covering a cancer underneath.
(4) Colonisation is a crime against humanity. To remotely suggest that some people should accept it is an insult to their humanity, especially to Africa which fought it for so long. To make such a suggestion is to empower the colonial master to do as it likes with those who, from their higher human nature, cannot accept to be subdued by colonisation. What will happen in that case is that relying on such support from the international community, nationalists will quickly be styled by the colonial master as rebels, secessionists, terrorists, trouble-makers, disgruntled few, so as to kill them for daring to question the legality of its presence on their territory. Another danger of bargaining with the devil of colonisation is that such bargains must always come back to haunt us. Therefore the international community must never suggest such a thing, because it only blesses more violence, impunity and a reign of terror from the colonial regime. The answer to colonization has never been a suggestion to live with it!
(5) The absence of justice. Colonisation by definition is armed robbery and rape all combined, and none of them tolerates resistance or opposition of any kind. They are things that can only be done by violence, not through consent. Therefore in the eyes of a colonial regime, it is never right to oppose its occupation, and therefore there can never be any justice also for those who question that occupation; the courts and the whole system will be instruments to promote that occupation! Nationalists of the country or territory occupied are therefore the natural enemies of colonization, even if kangaroo trials are organised to deceive the world. Since nationalists will never accept colonisation, to suggest that the occupied people should live with colonization is to deprive its nationalists (who are the more noble and more developed members of its population) of justice altogether, because the colonial regime is their natural enemy.
(6) There are people who because they themselves do not know what is called the cancer of colonization, find it easy to suggest that the People of Southern Cameroons should patch up with it; that the problem can be cured with good governance, decentralization and so on. This is an argument that was buried with Africa’s own fight for decolonization. At that time, many Africans argued that everything would fall into ruin; Africans were not yet ripe to govern themselves, that colonial masters governed Africans better than they would govern themselves and so on. These arguments never succeeded. Quite simply, and to put it crudely, it is better to eat your own shit than someone else’s own! The problems of colonization or external domination are a very different order of problems altogether from whatever internal problems a people may have. The problems you have in your own house are different from the problems imposed on you by a neighbour who has occupied your house. When Southern Cameroons was taken over, the first thing the colonial regime did was to shut down all its airports, wharfs, hydro-electric plants, banks and wipe out all economic infrastructure! Even the archives were seized and a large part of it forcefully carried to Yaounde! It then embarked on the wiping off from memory of every trace of the previous existence of Southern Cameroons: names of towns were changed; the flag changed; even the Plebiscite day was renamed to “Youth Day”; the unilateral federation which had been imposed to deceive the international community and fold the eyes of the inattentive Southern Cameroonians was abolished; the name of the country was progressively changed to the name The Republic of Cameroun had before its independence: La Republique du Cameroun. The two parts of the Southern Cameroons carved out into provinces of the colonial country were not linked by road and to go to each part, the roads go through La Republique du Cameroun! There has been systematic underdevelopment of the Southern Cameroons, even though the oil from which La Republique du Cameroun gets its money is from the Southern Cameroons. We say in our dialect that when you take a child's groundnuts, at least give him the peelings: in our case, not even the peelings have been given the People of Southern Cameroons!
(7) Finally, no one can have a greater right to the territory of Southern Cameroons than the People of Southern Cameroons themselves, and no one should be allowed to exercise such right. The People of Southern Cameroons are not claiming even a blade of grass from La Republque du Cameroun; all they are asking is that La Republique should withdraw from their territory to its own. No one loses anything in this withdrawal; instead peace, better relations and a new air of relief is restored for everyone. Freedom and Africa are the winners.


How does the Southern Cameroons Question offend African unity and integration?
In this part of the article we shall examine the soundness of the position that to restore the international personality of the Southern Cameroons by re-asserting its international borders and asking the Republic of Cameroon to withdraw to the borders recognized to it under the African Union Constitutive Act, the United Nations Charter and International Law in general, is contrary to African integration and unity.
As stated above, the Southern Cameroons Question cannot be discussed in a vacuum and out of context, and thus make our unverified and untested opinions the law on the matter. It can only be discussed within the context of international principles and the principles of African integration and union!
Once it is placed within the context of international law and African Union principles in particular, the question naturally arises: what are the principles of African integration, as laid down in any African Union text, that the People of Southern Cameroons are violating by asking La Republique du Cameroun to honour its treaty obligations to respect its borders as stipulated under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act? We cannot allege a contravention of African integration without being able to cite a single principle of integration that has been violated. The People of Southern Cameroons are backing their case by a list of the various principles of integration and Union that La Republique du Cameroun is violating with respect to the Southern Cameroons People and their territory. Let anyone who challenges their case do the same!
The principles of African Integration and Union
African Unity and Integration are not what each individual may think they are; it is not a matter of private persuasion or individual opinion. All the principles that are intended to promote the unity of Africa or its union are enshrined in its various governing texts, chief among which are the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The existence of these collectively-agreed-upon principles means that no one shall be allowed to talk about African problems and disputes without basing their position or opinion on these fundamental texts! It means that as long as African problems are being resolved on the basis of those principles, African Unity is being promoted and safeguarded! Any attempt to ignore these texts and talk about African problems from private persuasions and individual motives, whether considered as political or not, is to sow more conflicts in Africa! So-called political reasons that are not founded on collective principles enshrined in the fundamental texts of the Union are incapable of promoting peace and African Unity, especially in the long-run. The persistent attempt to override existing texts and principles with private opinion merely because one is in a position of power is an evil that is killing justice and the rule of law among the very people who are called upon to uphold the collective principles that should govern the peaceful relations between African peoples. All those called upon to resolve African problems are under an obligation not to express an opinion which is not founded on the fundamental texts collectively laid down to promote African Unity and resolve African problems. If they do so, they should indeed be held to be agents of conflicts on the Continent! So much injustice, conflicts and evils continue on the continent because those called upon to uphold the collective principles of unity do not feel themselves under any obligation to uphold those principles and are never held accountable for expressing opinions and taking positions which are not based on the fundamental texts of the Union. Everyone is at liberty to ignore the principles of the Union and talk about issues on the basis of their private persuasions! And then when conflicts arise, they come and make more speeches and promise never to see more Rwandas again. All the time however, their attitudes are just grooming more conflicts.
With regard to the Southern Cameroons Question, the fundamental texts which contain the violations that the Republic of Cameroun is being charged with are the OAU Charter (Article 2); the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b); and the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:
Articles 19: All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Article 21(1): All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people de deprived of it.
Article 22(1): All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
Article 23(1): All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. The principles of solidarity and friendly relations implicitly affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirmed by that of the Organisation of African Unity shall govern relations between states.
Article 24(1): All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

Eradicating colonization in all its forms:
Those who argue that liberation struggles and the demand for an end to colonization is contrary to African unity must have a very curious idea of unity. The Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, was founded principally to end colonization in all its forms on the African continent (Article 2, OAU Charter). The mistaken idea that prevails among some people is to think that the colonization that the OAU was set up to fight was only the colonization of Africa by foreigners and not also the colonization of Africans by Africans. Colonisation as a crime against humanity does not distinguish between who is colonized and who is colonizing. Africans are certainly part of humanity! All colonization has the same motives and behaves in the same criminal way and commits the same crimes. As the highest form of armed robbery and rape, it lives only on the use of force, violence, intimidation, the buying of consciences and fraud, for it knows that the rightful owners can NEVER voluntarily surrender their life, land, resources, and posterity to another people.
Dangers of turning integration and union into an ideology
At all times, we should bear in mind the crimes ideologies have promoted. The danger of turning the quest for integration and union into an ideology is that like all ideologies, people will begin to think that the same crimes that the ideology is meant to eradicate can be committed in the name of the ideology; people begin to think that the methods by which the ideology is achieved do not matter! Yet, what separates evil and good are the methods of each! We cannot achieve integration and union by tolerating the crimes that integration and union are meant to eradicate!
A wrong definition of the Southern Cameroons Question:
Part of the argument that the Southern Cameroons Question is against African integration and unity may have stemmed from a wrong understanding or misinterpretation of what the Southern Cameroons problem is. The Southern Cameroons problem may have been wrongly understood as a minority problem; a domestic problem; a linguistic problem; a question of secession or even the break-up of a state. Now, it is clear that it is none of these. After reading the definition of the Southern Cameroons Question as presented in this article, this initial opinion should now change. At the very least, the right attitude is not to fear to hear the facts and start passing judgment, but to seek full disclosure of the facts of this extraordinary story. Only through full and complete investigation of the facts of this story can its truth be established and the problem resolved in a lasting way.
Fear of further fragmentation of Africa
Another fear of people who see the Southern Cameroons Question as a threat to African integration and unity is, as stated above, that the birth of more states will lead to the further fragmentation of Africa. These are speculative fears which are not based on a hearing of the facts of the Southern Cameroons case at all. Such generalized speculation does the injustice of lumping all cases together, although the only way to treat each case is to hear its own facts first. Each case must be treated on its own merits. If the facts of one case are tested against international principles and they pass, that is no guarantee that every other case will pass the test. Therefore this fear is prejudicial and unfounded.
This fear also suggests that African integration can justify illegal territorial acquisition, the promotion of colonisation or the injustice of one person taking over his neighbour's house on the pretext that he is doing so for tribal unity! Or that the cure to the territorial fragmentation of Africa is through the perpetuation of existing injustices or the unavowed approval of territorial theft. The big idea here is that we want to create a larger territorial unit called an integrated or united Africa through fraud or the turning of a blind eye to the practices of fraud by one African people against another! In such a case, countries that use overt force or illegal and fraudulent means to occupy territory belonging to other people would just become agents of integration, although they themselves are not grabbing their neighbours’ territories in order to turn it over to the Union! Who will buy such an ideology of integration behind which there is hidden promotion of crimes and injustices? Where have we kept our memory of history to see that all previous empires created through this method have collapsed? Quite simply, this is a perversion of the principles of the African Union.
The extreme argument
In the extreme, it can be argued that almost all present African States were created through colonization and force, so why can't the same process be used by African States to enlarge their boundaries or subjugate other African peoples? After all, this is how all empires and even most states were formed! This, in fact seems to be the subconscious argument in the minds of those who think that a blind eye should be turned to countries which are using force to prevent those African peoples whose territories have been colonized by other African countries from gaining their independence. But let us ask ourselves these questions: (1) For whose good will that be, that of the colonizers or the colonized? (2) What is this dogma and hypnotic idea about forming larger entities? (3) If they are formed by conquest, wouldn’t they be kept only by force and more crimes on those who have been conquered?; (4) Is such an idea not a desire to turn back the hands of the clock from all the progress mankind has made in rejecting the law of the jungle and instituting principles of international law governing the relations between peoples and the methods of territorial acquisition? All one needs to say to counter such an argument is this: If Africans have now decided that colonization is no more a crime, let them so inform the rest of the world and stop using the argument of their own colonization to their advantage. How can colonization, which African leaders condemn on a daily basis in their speeches, suddenly become so acceptable because it is being committed by Africans against other Africans? All colonization comes with the same crimes, and how can Africa today say that it is willing to promote those crimes by Africans against Africans, for the sake of unity? We say that we are creating a union in order to help free the African from the crimes and bondage that he has been subject to, both at national level, and from foreign occupation. How then can these same crimes be promoted for the sake of that union? Africa should in this case hail colonization for helping to unify Africa, and stop accusing colonization for Africa's backwardness in every domain. We can therefore see that even such an extreme argument does not hold water.
Argument against the recognition of more states in Africa
The argument that the recognition of more States emerging from colonisation is against African unity is bizarre, seeing that the OAU's principal goal was to welcome more African countries into its fold as they emerged from colonization. How is admitting a new member who has been liberated from European colonization different from admitting a new member who has been liberated from the colonization of another African State? Welcoming Southern Cameroons into its fold as a new member liberated from the colonization of La Republique du Cameroun has just the same liberating and joyous effect as what happened when those African countries liberated from European colonization were welcomed into the OAU!
The fear of the birth of new states also suggests that a union of fewer states will be stronger than a union of more states. What is the basis of the suggestion that a union of 54 states is less united or less strong than one of 53 states? Isn't it variety and specialization that makes for perfection and therefore perfection increases with numbers? A union of states in conflict is far less efficient and more unstable than a union with peaceful states. The more conflicts there are within States, especially conflicts arising from colonization, the more it is only a matter of time for the union to spend its energies on wars and conflicts instead of on development.
The kinds of arguments that oppose the birth of more States give an opportunity to state this truth: that the dynamics and laws that lead to the birth and death of States have not ceased to operate because we are in the 21st century or because we have formed the African Union. Anyone who cares should observe that the number of States in the world has never ceased to increase; it is only increasing. And it will only continue to increase as individual freedom and the freedom of expression of presently oppressed peoples increases. In addition, the jungle law of might will have no place in the future of humanity; justice, truth and voluntary relinquishing of what is wrong will mean that we will see a break up of many present States, thus changing the map of the world in ways which we can now little expect! Even more beautiful is the fact that after their liberation, these states, seeing and working for their own greater good in bigger entities, will voluntarily accept to be part of Union as we have seen with Europe or Africa! There is no need to resist this trend, which is only for the greater good of mankind and of all its peoples.


A united and integrated Africa is not another empire to be built on fraud and territorial theft. All former empires collapsed because they were built through force and injustices. All illegal territorial acquisition, to build larger countries, like empires were built, simply sows new seeds of future disintegration, because human nature will never accept those injustices. This is why the principle of self-determination is a universal principle. It is because mankind has recognized that no country built on theft, force and injustices can last that the method by which unions, integration and unity is built today is by voluntary and mutual consent. If it is even remotely suggested that African integration is secretly based on a belief in injustice and fraud, no country will buy into it anymore! It is also clear that there will be no reason to respect justice or any law in such entities created through fraud and theft by those who were able to do so! These unconscious or premeditated tendencies of trying to create larger territorial units by fraud and injustice, or by turning a blind eye to them, are the same tendencies that Africa has continued to condemn in the European colonization of Africa. How can Africa be heard to be contemplating the same methods and acts? This is imperialism calling itself integration! These things enable us to see at what level our minds are and why we continue to create conflicts in the name of solving them.
CONCLUSION

Building one world is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process. Each people will come to accept the idea of a larger union only at their own good time as the illusions and fears they hold are conquered by the evidence of their own higher good in the larger unions which they may join. If we are impatient about this, inevitably we will seek to bypass the consent of those involved, and that is the beginning of future trouble because the people have not inwardly come to recognition of their own good in a larger union, but have been forced, precipitated or deceived into it.
African unity is like world unity, like family unity, or tribal unity. If the world cannot be united by subordinating and colonising other parts of the world, then Africa cannot be united by promoting colonization among its peoples and countries. How many African countries while they were struggling to free themselves from colonization would have listened to the argument that colonization was for the unity of the world? Today, Africa, through the African Union, is struggling to unite itself and assert its independence; is this against the unity of the world? How then can the fight for the people of Southern Cameroons to assert themselves and recover their territory long swindled from them be against the unity of Africa? No one unites the tribe by occupying the house of his neighbours or by instituting forced marriages! Unity is not slavery; it can never be! The sooner our ideas of union and unity are clarified, the better it will be for Africa, because these arguments betray horrendous obscurities from which most of Africa's conflicts are generated by those who have been appointed to foster unity. It is curious to note the divergence between the private persuasions of those who are called upon to work for Africa’s unity and the fundamental principles enshrined in the basic texts that have been collectively laid down to promote unity in Africa and govern the peaceful relations between its peoples!
In law, it is said that there is no agreement unless there is a meeting of minds. Therefore unity can be achieved only through agreement and therefore through greater freedom and greater justice in accordance with the principles entrenched in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Union's various governing texts. Colonisation is destructive of union, because it is destructive of any agreement. Where there is no justice, no freedom, no transparency, no full disclosure, there can be no agreement and therefore also no union or integration.
By seeking justice and restitution of their territory from which they have been wrongfully swindled, the people of Southern Cameroons are not going against African integration and unity. On the contrary, they are promoting it by invoking the principles on which integration and union are founded. And if it became necessary in the future for each people to turn over their territories for the purpose of integration or union, the territory would be turned over, not to a neighbour trying to swindle more territory for itself, but to the Union. The People of Southern Cameroons believe that African integration is built on consent; full and transparent disclosure of its goals and the methods to attain them; on the fact that integration and union embody mechanisms for justice, common good and values that could not be achieved otherwise and therefore which will attract all African peoples to voluntarily join because they see their own higher good in it.
However long colonization may last, it will never make the colonized country and territory a legal part of the colonizing country. This is why African countries were able, after, in some cases centuries, to still reassert their right to their own existence and sovereign independence. What establishes and proves colonization in modern history is the method by which the territory under dispute was acquired. The illegal acquisition of territory and the subjugation of one people by another are condemned world-wide and in all international legal instruments and declarations. In the case of the colonization of the Southern Cameroons by the Republic of Cameroun, colonization is conclusively proved by the fact that there is no Treaty of Union between the Republic of Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons and there is no International Treaty by which the boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon have been extended from what they were at the attainment of its independence on January 1 1960 (when the Southern Cameroons was still a UN Trust Territory), to now include the territory of the Southern Cameroons. Add to this the fact that the People of Southern Cameroons reject the rule of La Republique du Cameroun over their territory and are demanding that such illegal rule come to an immediate end. All narrations, however intricate, which cannot produce the proofs that La Republique du Cameroun’s jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons is founded on International Law, are of no avail. Secondly, colonization is also proved beyond doubt by the manner in which the colonized people are treated with respect to their struggle to assert their own independent existence. Colonial regimes live on intimidation, arrests, torture and imprisonment of liberation fighters, and on the buying of the consciences of those known in history as "collaborators"; they can never dare to face justice, law and truth! In the case of the Southern Cameroons' struggle, the colonial regime is so terrified of the truth that it has never for once accepted to sit down with the various liberation movements to discuss the matter, despite the numerous calls for dialogue. Instead, counting on its guns and prisons, it has arrested, tortured and imprisoned many Southern Cameroonians merely for daring to question the legal grounds of the colonial regime's pretended jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons.
Those who raise the argument that the recognition of new States or the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their peoples is contrary to African unity only thereby expose their own grave ignorance of the principles of Union entrenched in the governing texts of the African Union, as well as their enormous oblivion to the one fundamental trend of human history, which is that freedom is the future of mankind. Africa was able to free itself only because it insisted on the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their recognition as new states! If some people think union can be achieved through the promotion of colonization, then let them put it down as a union principle!
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the Southern Cameeroons case is founded entirely on African Union principles and that the case can be resolved only by upholding those principles. Not one principle of Union can be shown to have been violated by the people of Southern Cameroons. It does not help Africa to lay down beautiful principles and then shy away from applying them when the injustices that can only be resolved by applying those principles are brought to light. The courage to uphold African Union principles will determine whether Africa will come out of conflicts or will sink further into them.

William

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS QUESTION AND AFRICAN UNITY


Introduction:

Whenever the Southern Cameroons Question is raised, there are always spontaneous reactions to it, either in the form of wondering why such an unbelievable story has so far not come to light, or in the form of expressing the opinion that any demands which lead to the birth of more states in Africa is against African integration, because it fragments Africa into more states and thereby weakens it, or the fear is expressed that a new trend for such demands may be set in motion.
These spontaneous fears and reactions are quite understandable, if we consider how human beings always first react to certain situations. Human beings are by nature conservative and fear anything which seems to change the status quo known to them too much, whether it be new technology, social changes or not. Most of the things that mankind afterwards enjoyed, worshiped and fights for, it at first resisted with all its might! The birth of new states is no exception.
The other question that often arises is why people don’t hear about the case. The reason is quite simple: because the People of Southern Cameroons have not resorted to slaughtering yet! The system of the world is such that violence has become the preferred method of putting problems on the agenda of the international community, for without violence, the international community is deaf and dumb to issues of justice. So far however, the people of Southern Cameroons have refrained from slaughter, no matter how much the silence of the African Union and other conflict resolution bodies is suggesting that they too take up arms so that their problem may be heard and addressed as a “conflict”. On the contrary, the People of Southern Cameroons see that their case is so overwhelmingly strong that they have decided to challenge it, so far, by a total reliance on the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Their current motto is: “The Force of Argument and Not the Argument of Force”. It is up to the African Union whether it will uphold its own principles or will, by indifference to them, make violence and slaughter the only option left. We can always say that there shall never be another Rwanda again, but adopt positions that bring about more of them, isn't it? Since those who are called upon to uphold the principles of integration and union are not currently held accountable for their actions, they can always earn their salaries while through their silence encourage more conflicts and more genocides! It will be easy after such genocides have happened through their silence on African Union principles, to make more beautiful speeches about the high principles of peace, early warning systems, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, conflict prevention mechanisms, and so on!!! Who cares what they mean and whether they mean anything at all! Not once have African Union reports on conflicts mentioned the Southern Cameroons Question, although the relevant organs of the Union have been duly seized of the conflict. The great challenge facing us with regards to the Southern Cameroons Question is therefore whether the African Union will allow the matter to be settled peacefully or whether it must engineer another Rwanda through its current attitude of indifference to the principles that are meant to bring peace to Africa!
The spontaneous reactions of saying that the Southern Cameroons Question threatens African integration harbour the danger that those who express them do so in a vacuum and out of context, in the sense that, they forget altogether that the principles guiding African integration have been laid down by common consent; that there are United Nations and international principles governing the relations between peoples, issues of territorial acquisition, the freedoms and rights that all peoples are entitled to enjoy; the crimes that no people may commit against another, and so on. It is these principles that govern the context within which all countries and people operate and interact. If our spontaneous reactions are not to become the law, we must always examine complaints and conflicts in the light of the principles we have laid down to govern the relations between peoples.
The history of the world also shows that these initial spontaneous reactions are neither justified nor in accordance with history. History shows that no matter how much we have disliked divorces, they still happen and they are healthy for partners who cannot live with each other and therefore healthy for mankind as a whole; the history of the world shows that no matter how we have resisted the birth of new states, the number of states in the world is ever increasing and never reducing; the history of the world shows that what makes for unity is not conversion of the whole world into one country (as emperors attempted to do), but greater understanding between peoples and common principles that guide our humanity; and finally history shows that the future of mankind is not bondage but freedom in all its forms. Unity is in the meeting of minds and history shows that with time, even enemy peoples voluntarily come together! The inner workings of nature that lead to the birth of new states will not stop because mankind is in the 21st Century. On the contrary, since injustices always take time to be uncovered, and freedom and justice are only increasing, more injustices will be uncovered which will lead to the birth of more new states! This is not wrong, but accords entirely with justice and freedom, the most fundamental yearnings of the human being. We can predict the birth of more new states with great confidence because the world we know today was not shaped through justice and freedom but through force, intrigues, injustice and the rule of might. As mankind finally comes to the realisation that force, intrigues and injustices cannot create a better world, no matter how few the number of states it creates, our method of achieving unity will change from physical force, injustices and intrigues to consensus-building, the promotion of justice and freedoms as we see with the European Union. The same principle by which Africa is asserting itself in the world through the African Union is the same principle at work in the Southern Cameroons Question where a people long stifled and wrongly swindled of their own space of existence on earth are seeking justice and restitution!
The birth of new states is fundamentally anchored in mankind’s unquenchable need for freedom, the protection of identity, the self-preservation of peoples who see themselves as a one, and most important of all, justice. When we protect these principles, we cannot go wrong, no matter what happens in the short-run!

What is the Southern Cameroons Question?
The Southern Cameroons Question is the following: Does the Republic of Cameroun have jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons? If yes, on what instrument of international law is such jurisdiction founded? The Southern Cameroons Question is therefore a territorial dispute between the People of Southern Cameroons on the one hand, and the Republic of Cameroun on the other hand, arising from what in the eyes of the People of Southern Cameroons, is the illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons’ territory by the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Southern Cameroons demand that The Republic of Cameroun should honour its treaty obligations under the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b)) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 19, 20(1), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1)), by withdrawing from the territory of Southern Cameroons to its internationally recognised boundaries.
Under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, no other boundaries are recognized, both by the signatory state and the African Union, to any party to that Act, than the boundaries each signatory State inherited at independence. Under Articles Article 19 of the ACHPR, All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. Under Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.

The Southern Cameroons question is thus primarily an international territorial dispute and secondarily the crime of the subjugation of the People of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun. As a territorial dispute, the People of Southern Cameroons are calling on The Republic of Cameroun to prove to the African Union and the international community, its claimed title of sovereignty to the Southern Cameroons territory, and calling for United Nations and African Union provisions on territorial matters to be enforced.
When the Southern Cameroons question is presented in the more general terms of a demand for independence or self-determination, misunderstandings are introduced into it, because no one then knows whether the people seeking independence or self-determination are merely a minority within a legally constituted part of a sovereign state who want to secede by invoking their right to self-determination, or whether these are a people with their own international territory who have been occupied from outside by another state. Presenting the case under the demand for independence and self-determination also confuses the Southern Cameroons Question with the case of territories that had no recognized status under international law, no internationally recognised boundaries prior their occupation by the country from which they demand independence, or which had not known any modern representative government.
The Southern Cameroons’s case does not fall under any of the above sub cases of independence and self-determination. The boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not created by The Republic of Cameroun; nor is the Southern Cameroons a part of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroun is a neighbouring country to Southern Cameroons that used historical circumstances and tricks to occupy Southern Cameroons. The Southern Cameroons, as part of the League of Nations’ mandate of The Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration, acquired international personality as from the moment it became a League of Nations Mandate and subsequently a United Nations Trust Territory under the Trusteeship Agreement signed between Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and the United Nations on the other hand. It achieved self-government in 1954, had a constitution, a constitutional government, internationally recognized boundaries safeguarded with international treaties, a Prime Minister, a Parliament, its own Government structures and was preparing for independence, when in 1961, through events that will become clear as the case is unfolded, it was occupied by The Republic of Cameroun, with no paper signed, no agreement and no instrument of International Law whatsoever!
It should be stated clearly at the outset therefore that the Southern Cameroons question is not about creating a new State out of another one; it is not about breaking up a State; it is not about carving one country out of another; it is not about secession; it is not about a minority within a state seeking self-determination or independence because it is dissatisfied with its treatment. It is about ending the illegal occupation of one country by another; it is about resolving a territorial dispute between two subjects of international law; it is about territorial restitution; it is about decolonization; it is about freeing a colonized and subjugated people and giving them back their freedom; it is about correcting international fraud and theft of one people's territory, country and space of existence by another; it is about enforcing the principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act, its Charters, the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law. The withdrawal of La Republique du Cameroun from the illegally occupied Southern Cameroons territory will not diminish the legal territory of La Republique; it will not change its recognized international boundaries; it will take absolutely nothing away from it!

Where is the Southern Cameroons, as a territory, located on the African map?

Source: Dr. Ngwang Ngumne: The Southern Cameroons, Misrule or Betrayal.

When people hear the term “Southern Cameroons”, they immediately think that it refers to the southern part of the Republic of Cameroun. No, the Southern Cameroons, the territory demanding the withdrawal of the Republic of Cameroun from its territory, is not and has never been a legal part of the Republic of Cameroun. The word “Southern” in the name “Southern Cameroons" refers to the Southern part of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom's Administration. The Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration was a non-contiguous territory, separated into a Northern and Southern part by a 64-kilometer stretch of land that was not part of its territory, and so it was practically divided, by the Administering Authority, into two: the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons, with each being recognised at the UN and treated in the same capacity as a separate Trust territory. It was by virtue of this recognition that the United Nations endorsed the two separate plebiscites held in Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons by the Administering Authority, even though the need for a plebiscite was itself questionable. It was also by virtue of this recognition that the Southern Cameroons went into negotiations with La Republique du Cameroun on the nature of the union which finally never took place. As a territory, the Southern Cameroons is located to the south east of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the south west of the Republic of Cameroun, as shown in the map above.

How did it happen? A brief presentation of the facts:
There is a certain danger in narration: narration prejudices the mind if we cannot draw the right logical conclusions from the facts alleged. This is why the courts are trained in drawing the right conclusions from narrations. When one listens to people arguing a matter, the side that has no proof for its case usually adopts the tactic of losing everyone in confused and lengthy narrations that cannot add up to proof. Another danger in narration is that facts are presented without being able to interpret them correctly or show their implication and impact, if any, on the problem that requires a solution. The Southern Cameroons question is one of those issues where because it is easy to lose the hearer in the thick and dark forest of lengthy narrations, the only way to have a handle on the matter is to focus on the proofs necessary to resolve it. The one question that the People of Southern Cameroons are asking LRC to answer is this: can LRC put on the table for the world to see any valid instrument of international law by which it is claiming jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons? This proof cannot be avoided, because LRC requires the international community to recognise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons. The only way the international community should do that is if the territory was acquired following the principles laid down by the international community. No country should lure the international community to become an accomplice to its violations of the principles laid down to promote peace and justice in the world by the same international community.

The facts:
Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Allied Forces decided to seize all German territories and to give them a completely new beginning under the new international system of the League of Nations. German Kamerun, one of the territories seized from Germany in Africa, was divided into two mandated territories through the Versailles Treaty, one placed under British administration and the other under the French administration. The Southern Cameroons belongs to the one under the British mandate.
After the Second World War, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and the system of mandates changed into the system of Trusts. On 13 December 1946, the United Kingdom signed a Trusteeship Agreement, with the United Nations, for the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration.
The purpose of creating Trust Territories was defined in Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter as being to lead the people of the trust territory to independence or self-government as the circumstances of each case might deman. Needless to say the fate of each Trust Territory was in no way linked in any UN instrument to that of another; each was pursuing its own destiny, each being equal to the other under international law.
Benefiting from this system of Trusts, French Cameroons, which was being administered by France under a separate Trusteeship Agreement, gained its independence on 1 January 1960.
The Cameroons under UK Administeration was divided into two parts, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons. In 1954 the Southern Cameroons gained self-government with a Prime Minister, constitutional government, a Parliament and its own state structures.
Nigeria, from which Southern Cameroons was being governed, gained independence on 1 October 1960, and in respect of the separate status of Southern Cameroons, it was no longer possible to rule it from that country. Therefore discussions began for the question of the independence of the Cameroons under UK administration.
Contrary to Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, the Administering Authority, the UK, decided, instead of granting independence, to organize two plebiscites, one in Northern Cameroons and one in Southern Cameroons. This was a shock, especially in view of the fact that the self-government of the Southern Cameroons was the last step to its independence and sovereignty.
The questions put in the Plebiscite to the People of Southern Cameroons were these: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon? OR “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?”
The People of Southern Cameroons voted by 7:3, to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria.
On April 21 1961, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1608 (XV) in which it recognized the results of the Plebiscite, called for a Post-plebiscite Conference between the Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to reach an agreement (treaty) by which the intentions expressed in the Plebiscite could be implemented. The passing of this Resolution was the last act of the United Nations on the Southern Cameroons!!!!
Unfortunately, because of lack of follow up by the United Nations and its Administering Authority, the UK, Resolution 1608(XV) was never implemented. Instead, a series of conspiracies took place through which instead of a Treaty of Union taking place between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern Cameroons was occupied by the Republic of Cameroun and the occupation thinly veiled with a so-called federation whose constitution was written by the Republic of Cameroun and imposed on the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN Trust Territory.
Short commentary on the facts:
As stated in the introduction to this part, without understanding the meaning and interpretation of various alleged events and facts, it would be difficult to get a handle on this story. The greatest point of misunderstanding has been the interpretation of the Plebiscite. Most people, as soon as the fact is acknowledged that there was a Plebiscite in which the People of Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun, rush to the conclusion that there was valid union. By what instrument or Act? Can two subjects of international law just merge informally and without any evidence to that effect? Even if, without evidence, anyone grants that the People of Southern Cameroons joined, should he also not grant that they can withdraw? Can valid consent be acknowledged only to say “Yes” but never again to say “No”? Clearly the People who are alleged to have the consent to say “yes” must also be able to say “No”, unless there is duress and fraud on them! In addition, political unions are not a way by which one people surrender or give away their territory and space of existence to another people. Consequently, even a political union would not have given the Cameroun Republic any sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons territory. Political unions are purely administrative conveniences!
The Plebiscite was essentially a dialogue between the United Nations and the People of Southern Cameroons, with the Republic of Cameroun having no part in it. Its result was simply the answer the people of Southern Cameroons gave to the United Nations in response to the question the United Nations had put to them. How could this answer, made to the United Nations, by the People of Southern Cameroons, in response to a question put to them by the United Nations become a treaty of Union, or even the implementation of the wish expressed in the answer, or even the Act of joining? No matter how we stretch our imagination, the Plebiscite could not be a Treaty of Union, the Act of joining or the achievement of independence.
It was precisely in recognition of the fact that what the people of Southern Cameroons said in the Plebiscite could not bind them to any third party that Resolution 1608(XV) was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 April 1961. It called for the Post-Plebiscite Conference and the working out of an agreement to implement the intentions of the parties. In other words, it recognised that the implementation of the Plebiscite results, through the signing of a valid international treaty, as was necessary between two subjects of international law (the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun), could only take place after the expression of the intention through the mechanism of the Plebiscite.
It is irrelevant by what means The Republic of Cameroun managed to occupy the Southern Cameroons without a valid instrument of international law: whether it was by bribing certain people in the Southern Cameroons, by the conspiracy of the Administering Authority, by duress or whatever, does not matter. All these conspiracies, intrigues or bribery or duress are separate crimes on their own, but they cannot validly transfer the territory and posterity of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun! No one can have a greater right to the territory of the Southern Cameroons than the people of Southern Cameroons!

Why can the people of Southern Cameroons not just accept to live together with the Republic of Cameroun in peace?

It is very easy for a person whose own people and country did not accept occupation and colonization, to now suggest to the people of Southern Cameroons to live with such a crime, for we have not yet learnt to treat with others as we would like to be treated! See the joy in the eyes of a free people; see how each country celebrates its national heroes and the day it achieved independence; see how fiercely every people defend their independence! If it is so sweet for everyone else, why not for the People of Southern Cameroons? How do you suggest to a person that he does not need a house of his own, while everyone else is fighting to have a house? These are some of the more pertinent reasons why the people of Southern Cameroons cannot simply live in peace with the invaders.
(1) Peace cannot be predicated without justice, without freedom, and in a situation in which one people’s territory and resources have been fraudulently seized by another people. Talking of living together may suggest that the two peoples, the people of Southern Cameroons and the People of the Republic of Cameroun, are disputing territory or space of existence. NO! The Republic of Cameroun has its own territory and way of life, which the People of Southern Cameroons are not disputing, but has left its own territory and crossed its recognised international borders to invade and occupy the territory of Southern Cameroons and imposed an alien way of life on it. Good fences make good neighbours; that is the best way it should be! Never suggest that the fence which separates two neighbours should be broken down so that they may live together in “peace”! It is the putting up of the fence that will bring peace and so-called living together.
(2) The nature of the human being and the nature of colonization make it impossible for the two to live together. On the one hand, human nature is self-determining; that is, no one wants to surrender his own life and house to his neighbour no matter how poor or unable he may be. No people too want to surrender their homeland and space of existence to another people. Each one wants to be his own master in his own house and on his own territory. Isn’t it surprising that one people think they know the value of territory, freedom and self-determination, but the people they occupy should not know? If a homeland and territory are so good for the colonial master, why should it not be for the occupied peoples who are also human beings?
(3) The nature of colonization too makes it impossible: colonization is armed robbery and rape of the highest type, committed by one people against another. It does and can only live on the use of arms, because it is an imposition! Because the people who have been fraudulently or wrongfully occupied will resist it, the only way colonization can maintain itself is through violence, intimidation, force, arrests, torture, extra-judicial killings, and the bribing of consciences. No beautiful public speeches and sweet talk about democracy and freedoms or development can change its inherent nature to be like this. Only foreigners separated by distance or people being bribed to collaborate can fail to see this. Colonisation is always suspicious that the people it has wrongfully occupied will recover their freedom at the first opportunity, and so from this suspicion is ever prompt to suppress. It is also a system of exploitation, because the first reason for seizing other peoples’ territory is always economic; to develop your own country and impoverish the colonized peoples! Therefore in all situations of colonization, the colonized peoples are being underdeveloped; a master and servant relationship always exists. Whatever superficial dazzles are used to cover up these facts, they are only like a beautiful body covering a cancer underneath.
(4) Colonisation is a crime against humanity. To remotely suggest that some people should accept it is an insult to their humanity, especially to Africa which fought it for so long. To make such a suggestion is to empower the colonial master to do as it likes with those who, from their higher human nature, cannot accept to be subdued by colonisation. What will happen in that case is that relying on such support from the international community, nationalists will quickly be styled by the colonial master as rebels, secessionists, terrorists, trouble-makers, disgruntled few, so as to kill them for daring to question the legality of its presence on their territory. Another danger of bargaining with the devil of colonisation is that such bargains must always come back to haunt us. Therefore the international community must never suggest such a thing, because it only blesses more violence, impunity and a reign of terror from the colonial regime. The answer to colonization has never been a suggestion to live with it!
(5) The absence of justice. Colonisation by definition is armed robbery and rape all combined, and none of them tolerates resistance or opposition of any kind. They are things that can only be done by violence, not through consent. Therefore in the eyes of a colonial regime, it is never right to oppose its occupation, and therefore there can never be any justice also for those who question that occupation; the courts and the whole system will be instruments to promote that occupation! Nationalists of the country or territory occupied are therefore the natural enemies of colonization, even if kangaroo trials are organised to deceive the world. Since nationalists will never accept colonisation, to suggest that the occupied people should live with colonization is to deprive its nationalists (who are the more noble and more developed members of its population) of justice altogether, because the colonial regime is their natural enemy.
(6) There are people who because they themselves do not know what is called the cancer of colonization, find it easy to suggest that the People of Southern Cameroons should patch up with it; that the problem can be cured with good governance, decentralization and so on. This is an argument that was buried with Africa’s own fight for decolonization. At that time, many Africans argued that everything would fall into ruin; Africans were not yet ripe to govern themselves, that colonial masters governed Africans better than they would govern themselves and so on. These arguments never succeeded. Quite simply, and to put it crudely, it is better to eat your own shit than someone else’s own! The problems of colonization or external domination are a very different order of problems altogether from whatever internal problems a people may have. The problems you have in your own house are different from the problems imposed on you by a neighbour who has occupied your house. When Southern Cameroons was taken over, the first thing the colonial regime did was to shut down all its airports, wharfs, hydro-electric plants, banks and wipe out all economic infrastructure! Even the archives were seized and a large part of it forcefully carried to Yaounde! It then embarked on the wiping off from memory of every trace of the previous existence of Southern Cameroons: names of towns were changed; the flag changed; even the Plebiscite day was renamed to “Youth Day”; the unilateral federation which had been imposed to deceive the international community and fold the eyes of the inattentive Southern Cameroonians was abolished; the name of the country was progressively changed to the name The Republic of Cameroun had before its independence: La Republique du Cameroun. The two parts of the Southern Cameroons carved out into provinces of the colonial country were not linked by road and to go to each part, the roads go through La Republique du Cameroun! There has been systematic underdevelopment of the Southern Cameroons, even though the oil from which La Republique du Cameroun gets its money is from the Southern Cameroons. We say in our dialect that when you take a child's groundnuts, at least give him the peelings: in our case, not even the peelings have been given the People of Southern Cameroons!
(7) Finally, no one can have a greater right to the territory of Southern Cameroons than the People of Southern Cameroons themselves, and no one should be allowed to exercise such right. The People of Southern Cameroons are not claiming even a blade of grass from La Republque du Cameroun; all they are asking is that La Republique should withdraw from their territory to its own. No one loses anything in this withdrawal; instead peace, better relations and a new air of relief is restored for everyone. Freedom and Africa are the winners.


How does the Southern Cameroons Question offend African unity and integration?
In this part of the article we shall examine the soundness of the position that to restore the international personality of the Southern Cameroons by re-asserting its international borders and asking the Republic of Cameroon to withdraw to the borders recognized to it under the African Union Constitutive Act, the United Nations Charter and International Law in general, is contrary to African integration and unity.
As stated above, the Southern Cameroons Question cannot be discussed in a vacuum and out of context, and thus make our unverified and untested opinions the law on the matter. It can only be discussed within the context of international principles and the principles of African integration and union!
Once it is placed within the context of international law and African Union principles in particular, the question naturally arises: what are the principles of African integration, as laid down in any African Union text, that the People of Southern Cameroons are violating by asking La Republique du Cameroun to honour its treaty obligations to respect its borders as stipulated under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act? We cannot allege a contravention of African integration without being able to cite a single principle of integration that has been violated. The People of Southern Cameroons are backing their case by a list of the various principles of integration and Union that La Republique du Cameroun is violating with respect to the Southern Cameroons People and their territory. Let anyone who challenges their case do the same!
The principles of African Integration and Union
African Unity and Integration are not what each individual may think they are; it is not a matter of private persuasion or individual opinion. All the principles that are intended to promote the unity of Africa or its union are enshrined in its various governing texts, chief among which are the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The existence of these collectively-agreed-upon principles means that no one shall be allowed to talk about African problems and disputes without basing their position or opinion on these fundamental texts! It means that as long as African problems are being resolved on the basis of those principles, African Unity is being promoted and safeguarded! Any attempt to ignore these texts and talk about African problems from private persuasions and individual motives, whether considered as political or not, is to sow more conflicts in Africa! So-called political reasons that are not founded on collective principles enshrined in the fundamental texts of the Union are incapable of promoting peace and African Unity, especially in the long-run. The persistent attempt to override existing texts and principles with private opinion merely because one is in a position of power is an evil that is killing justice and the rule of law among the very people who are called upon to uphold the collective principles that should govern the peaceful relations between African peoples. All those called upon to resolve African problems are under an obligation not to express an opinion which is not founded on the fundamental texts collectively laid down to promote African Unity and resolve African problems. If they do so, they should indeed be held to be agents of conflicts on the Continent! So much injustice, conflicts and evils continue on the continent because those called upon to uphold the collective principles of unity do not feel themselves under any obligation to uphold those principles and are never held accountable for expressing opinions and taking positions which are not based on the fundamental texts of the Union. Everyone is at liberty to ignore the principles of the Union and talk about issues on the basis of their private persuasions! And then when conflicts arise, they come and make more speeches and promise never to see more Rwandas again. All the time however, their attitudes are just grooming more conflicts.
With regard to the Southern Cameroons Question, the fundamental texts which contain the violations that the Republic of Cameroun is being charged with are the OAU Charter (Article 2); the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b); and the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:
Articles 19: All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Article 21(1): All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people de deprived of it.
Article 22(1): All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
Article 23(1): All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. The principles of solidarity and friendly relations implicitly affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirmed by that of the Organisation of African Unity shall govern relations between states.
Article 24(1): All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

Eradicating colonization in all its forms:
Those who argue that liberation struggles and the demand for an end to colonization is contrary to African unity must have a very curious idea of unity. The Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, was founded principally to end colonization in all its forms on the African continent (Article 2, OAU Charter). The mistaken idea that prevails among some people is to think that the colonization that the OAU was set up to fight was only the colonization of Africa by foreigners and not also the colonization of Africans by Africans. Colonisation as a crime against humanity does not distinguish between who is colonized and who is colonizing. Africans are certainly part of humanity! All colonization has the same motives and behaves in the same criminal way and commits the same crimes. As the highest form of armed robbery and rape, it lives only on the use of force, violence, intimidation, the buying of consciences and fraud, for it knows that the rightful owners can NEVER voluntarily surrender their life, land, resources, and posterity to another people.
Dangers of turning integration and union into an ideology
At all times, we should bear in mind the crimes ideologies have promoted. The danger of turning the quest for integration and union into an ideology is that like all ideologies, people will begin to think that the same crimes that the ideology is meant to eradicate can be committed in the name of the ideology; people begin to think that the methods by which the ideology is achieved do not matter! Yet, what separates evil and good are the methods of each! We cannot achieve integration and union by tolerating the crimes that integration and union are meant to eradicate!
A wrong definition of the Southern Cameroons Question:
Part of the argument that the Southern Cameroons Question is against African integration and unity may have stemmed from a wrong understanding or misinterpretation of what the Southern Cameroons problem is. The Southern Cameroons problem may have been wrongly understood as a minority problem; a domestic problem; a linguistic problem; a question of secession or even the break-up of a state. Now, it is clear that it is none of these. After reading the definition of the Southern Cameroons Question as presented in this article, this initial opinion should now change. At the very least, the right attitude is not to fear to hear the facts and start passing judgment, but to seek full disclosure of the facts of this extraordinary story. Only through full and complete investigation of the facts of this story can its truth be established and the problem resolved in a lasting way.
Fear of further fragmentation of Africa
Another fear of people who see the Southern Cameroons Question as a threat to African integration and unity is, as stated above, that the birth of more states will lead to the further fragmentation of Africa. These are speculative fears which are not based on a hearing of the facts of the Southern Cameroons case at all. Such generalized speculation does the injustice of lumping all cases together, although the only way to treat each case is to hear its own facts first. Each case must be treated on its own merits. If the facts of one case are tested against international principles and they pass, that is no guarantee that every other case will pass the test. Therefore this fear is prejudicial and unfounded.
This fear also suggests that African integration can justify illegal territorial acquisition, the promotion of colonisation or the injustice of one person taking over his neighbour's house on the pretext that he is doing so for tribal unity! Or that the cure to the territorial fragmentation of Africa is through the perpetuation of existing injustices or the unavowed approval of territorial theft. The big idea here is that we want to create a larger territorial unit called an integrated or united Africa through fraud or the turning of a blind eye to the practices of fraud by one African people against another! In such a case, countries that use overt force or illegal and fraudulent means to occupy territory belonging to other people would just become agents of integration, although they themselves are not grabbing their neighbours’ territories in order to turn it over to the Union! Who will buy such an ideology of integration behind which there is hidden promotion of crimes and injustices? Where have we kept our memory of history to see that all previous empires created through this method have collapsed? Quite simply, this is a perversion of the principles of the African Union.
The extreme argument
In the extreme, it can be argued that almost all present African States were created through colonization and force, so why can't the same process be used by African States to enlarge their boundaries or subjugate other African peoples? After all, this is how all empires and even most states were formed! This, in fact seems to be the subconscious argument in the minds of those who think that a blind eye should be turned to countries which are using force to prevent those African peoples whose territories have been colonized by other African countries from gaining their independence. But let us ask ourselves these questions: (1) For whose good will that be, that of the colonizers or the colonized? (2) What is this dogma and hypnotic idea about forming larger entities? (3) If they are formed by conquest, wouldn’t they be kept only by force and more crimes on those who have been conquered?; (4) Is such an idea not a desire to turn back the hands of the clock from all the progress mankind has made in rejecting the law of the jungle and instituting principles of international law governing the relations between peoples and the methods of territorial acquisition? All one needs to say to counter such an argument is this: If Africans have now decided that colonization is no more a crime, let them so inform the rest of the world and stop using the argument of their own colonization to their advantage. How can colonization, which African leaders condemn on a daily basis in their speeches, suddenly become so acceptable because it is being committed by Africans against other Africans? All colonization comes with the same crimes, and how can Africa today say that it is willing to promote those crimes by Africans against Africans, for the sake of unity? We say that we are creating a union in order to help free the African from the crimes and bondage that he has been subject to, both at national level, and from foreign occupation. How then can these same crimes be promoted for the sake of that union? Africa should in this case hail colonization for helping to unify Africa, and stop accusing colonization for Africa's backwardness in every domain. We can therefore see that even such an extreme argument does not hold water.
Argument against the recognition of more states in Africa
The argument that the recognition of more States emerging from colonisation is against African unity is bizarre, seeing that the OAU's principal goal was to welcome more African countries into its fold as they emerged from colonization. How is admitting a new member who has been liberated from European colonization different from admitting a new member who has been liberated from the colonization of another African State? Welcoming Southern Cameroons into its fold as a new member liberated from the colonization of La Republique du Cameroun has just the same liberating and joyous effect as what happened when those African countries liberated from European colonization were welcomed into the OAU!
The fear of the birth of new states also suggests that a union of fewer states will be stronger than a union of more states. What is the basis of the suggestion that a union of 54 states is less united or less strong than one of 53 states? Isn't it variety and specialization that makes for perfection and therefore perfection increases with numbers? A union of states in conflict is far less efficient and more unstable than a union with peaceful states. The more conflicts there are within States, especially conflicts arising from colonization, the more it is only a matter of time for the union to spend its energies on wars and conflicts instead of on development.
The kinds of arguments that oppose the birth of more States give an opportunity to state this truth: that the dynamics and laws that lead to the birth and death of States have not ceased to operate because we are in the 21st century or because we have formed the African Union. Anyone who cares should observe that the number of States in the world has never ceased to increase; it is only increasing. And it will only continue to increase as individual freedom and the freedom of expression of presently oppressed peoples increases. In addition, the jungle law of might will have no place in the future of humanity; justice, truth and voluntary relinquishing of what is wrong will mean that we will see a break up of many present States, thus changing the map of the world in ways which we can now little expect! Even more beautiful is the fact that after their liberation, these states, seeing and working for their own greater good in bigger entities, will voluntarily accept to be part of Union as we have seen with Europe or Africa! There is no need to resist this trend, which is only for the greater good of mankind and of all its peoples.


A united and integrated Africa is not another empire to be built on fraud and territorial theft. All former empires collapsed because they were built through force and injustices. All illegal territorial acquisition, to build larger countries, like empires were built, simply sows new seeds of future disintegration, because human nature will never accept those injustices. This is why the principle of self-determination is a universal principle. It is because mankind has recognized that no country built on theft, force and injustices can last that the method by which unions, integration and unity is built today is by voluntary and mutual consent. If it is even remotely suggested that African integration is secretly based on a belief in injustice and fraud, no country will buy into it anymore! It is also clear that there will be no reason to respect justice or any law in such entities created through fraud and theft by those who were able to do so! These unconscious or premeditated tendencies of trying to create larger territorial units by fraud and injustice, or by turning a blind eye to them, are the same tendencies that Africa has continued to condemn in the European colonization of Africa. How can Africa be heard to be contemplating the same methods and acts? This is imperialism calling itself integration! These things enable us to see at what level our minds are and why we continue to create conflicts in the name of solving them.
CONCLUSION

Building one world is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process. Each people will come to accept the idea of a larger union only at their own good time as the illusions and fears they hold are conquered by the evidence of their own higher good in the larger unions which they may join. If we are impatient about this, inevitably we will seek to bypass the consent of those involved, and that is the beginning of future trouble because the people have not inwardly come to recognition of their own good in a larger union, but have been forced, precipitated or deceived into it.
African unity is like world unity, like family unity, or tribal unity. If the world cannot be united by subordinating and colonising other parts of the world, then Africa cannot be united by promoting colonization among its peoples and countries. How many African countries while they were struggling to free themselves from colonization would have listened to the argument that colonization was for the unity of the world? Today, Africa, through the African Union, is struggling to unite itself and assert its independence; is this against the unity of the world? How then can the fight for the people of Southern Cameroons to assert themselves and recover their territory long swindled from them be against the unity of Africa? No one unites the tribe by occupying the house of his neighbours or by instituting forced marriages! Unity is not slavery; it can never be! The sooner our ideas of union and unity are clarified, the better it will be for Africa, because these arguments betray horrendous obscurities from which most of Africa's conflicts are generated by those who have been appointed to foster unity. It is curious to note the divergence between the private persuasions of those who are called upon to work for Africa’s unity and the fundamental principles enshrined in the basic texts that have been collectively laid down to promote unity in Africa and govern the peaceful relations between its peoples!
In law, it is said that there is no agreement unless there is a meeting of minds. Therefore unity can be achieved only through agreement and therefore through greater freedom and greater justice in accordance with the principles entrenched in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Union's various governing texts. Colonisation is destructive of union, because it is destructive of any agreement. Where there is no justice, no freedom, no transparency, no full disclosure, there can be no agreement and therefore also no union or integration.
By seeking justice and restitution of their territory from which they have been wrongfully swindled, the people of Southern Cameroons are not going against African integration and unity. On the contrary, they are promoting it by invoking the principles on which integration and union are founded. And if it became necessary in the future for each people to turn over their territories for the purpose of integration or union, the territory would be turned over, not to a neighbour trying to swindle more territory for itself, but to the Union. The People of Southern Cameroons believe that African integration is built on consent; full and transparent disclosure of its goals and the methods to attain them; on the fact that integration and union embody mechanisms for justice, common good and values that could not be achieved otherwise and therefore which will attract all African peoples to voluntarily join because they see their own higher good in it.
However long colonization may last, it will never make the colonized country and territory a legal part of the colonizing country. This is why African countries were able, after, in some cases centuries, to still reassert their right to their own existence and sovereign independence. What establishes and proves colonization in modern history is the method by which the territory under dispute was acquired. The illegal acquisition of territory and the subjugation of one people by another are condemned world-wide and in all international legal instruments and declarations. In the case of the colonization of the Southern Cameroons by the Republic of Cameroun, colonization is conclusively proved by the fact that there is no Treaty of Union between the Republic of Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons and there is no International Treaty by which the boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon have been extended from what they were at the attainment of its independence on January 1 1960 (when the Southern Cameroons was still a UN Trust Territory), to now include the territory of the Southern Cameroons. Add to this the fact that the People of Southern Cameroons reject the rule of La Republique du Cameroun over their territory and are demanding that such illegal rule come to an immediate end. All narrations, however intricate, which cannot produce the proofs that La Republique du Cameroun’s jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons is founded on International Law, are of no avail. Secondly, colonization is also proved beyond doubt by the manner in which the colonized people are treated with respect to their struggle to assert their own independent existence. Colonial regimes live on intimidation, arrests, torture and imprisonment of liberation fighters, and on the buying of the consciences of those known in history as "collaborators"; they can never dare to face justice, law and truth! In the case of the Southern Cameroons' struggle, the colonial regime is so terrified of the truth that it has never for once accepted to sit down with the various liberation movements to discuss the matter, despite the numerous calls for dialogue. Instead, counting on its guns and prisons, it has arrested, tortured and imprisoned many Southern Cameroonians merely for daring to question the legal grounds of the colonial regime's pretended jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons.
Those who raise the argument that the recognition of new States or the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their peoples is contrary to African unity only thereby expose their own grave ignorance of the principles of Union entrenched in the governing texts of the African Union, as well as their enormous oblivion to the one fundamental trend of human history, which is that freedom is the future of mankind. Africa was able to free itself only because it insisted on the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their recognition as new states! If some people think union can be achieved through the promotion of colonization, then let them put it down as a union principle!
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the Southern Cameeroons case is founded entirely on African Union principles and that the case can be resolved only by upholding those principles. Not one principle of Union can be shown to have been violated by the people of Southern Cameroons. It does not help Africa to lay down beautiful principles and then shy away from applying them when the injustices that can only be resolved by applying those principles are brought to light. The courage to uphold African Union principles will determine whether Africa will come out of conflicts or will sink further into them.

William

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS QUESTION AND AFRICAN UNITY


Introduction:

Whenever the Southern Cameroons Question is raised, there are always spontaneous reactions to it, either in the form of wondering why such an unbelievable story has so far not come to light, or in the form of expressing the opinion that any demands which lead to the birth of more states in Africa is against African integration, because it fragments Africa into more states and thereby weakens it, or the fear is expressed that a new trend for such demands may be set in motion.
These spontaneous fears and reactions are quite understandable, if we consider how human beings always first react to certain situations. Human beings are by nature conservative and fear anything which seems to change the status quo known to them too much, whether it be new technology, social changes or not. Most of the things that mankind afterwards enjoyed, worshiped and fights for, it at first resisted with all its might! The birth of new states is no exception.
The other question that often arises is why people don’t hear about the case. The reason is quite simple: because the People of Southern Cameroons have not resorted to slaughtering yet! The system of the world is such that violence has become the preferred method of putting problems on the agenda of the international community, for without violence, the international community is deaf and dumb to issues of justice. So far however, the people of Southern Cameroons have refrained from slaughter, no matter how much the silence of the African Union and other conflict resolution bodies is suggesting that they too take up arms so that their problem may be heard and addressed as a “conflict”. On the contrary, the People of Southern Cameroons see that their case is so overwhelmingly strong that they have decided to challenge it, so far, by a total reliance on the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Their current motto is: “The Force of Argument and Not the Argument of Force”. It is up to the African Union whether it will uphold its own principles or will, by indifference to them, make violence and slaughter the only option left. We can always say that there shall never be another Rwanda again, but adopt positions that bring about more of them, isn't it? Since those who are called upon to uphold the principles of integration and union are not currently held accountable for their actions, they can always earn their salaries while through their silence encourage more conflicts and more genocides! It will be easy after such genocides have happened through their silence on African Union principles, to make more beautiful speeches about the high principles of peace, early warning systems, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, conflict prevention mechanisms, and so on!!! Who cares what they mean and whether they mean anything at all! Not once have African Union reports on conflicts mentioned the Southern Cameroons Question, although the relevant organs of the Union have been duly seized of the conflict. The great challenge facing us with regards to the Southern Cameroons Question is therefore whether the African Union will allow the matter to be settled peacefully or whether it must engineer another Rwanda through its current attitude of indifference to the principles that are meant to bring peace to Africa!
The spontaneous reactions of saying that the Southern Cameroons Question threatens African integration harbour the danger that those who express them do so in a vacuum and out of context, in the sense that, they forget altogether that the principles guiding African integration have been laid down by common consent; that there are United Nations and international principles governing the relations between peoples, issues of territorial acquisition, the freedoms and rights that all peoples are entitled to enjoy; the crimes that no people may commit against another, and so on. It is these principles that govern the context within which all countries and people operate and interact. If our spontaneous reactions are not to become the law, we must always examine complaints and conflicts in the light of the principles we have laid down to govern the relations between peoples.
The history of the world also shows that these initial spontaneous reactions are neither justified nor in accordance with history. History shows that no matter how much we have disliked divorces, they still happen and they are healthy for partners who cannot live with each other and therefore healthy for mankind as a whole; the history of the world shows that no matter how we have resisted the birth of new states, the number of states in the world is ever increasing and never reducing; the history of the world shows that what makes for unity is not conversion of the whole world into one country (as emperors attempted to do), but greater understanding between peoples and common principles that guide our humanity; and finally history shows that the future of mankind is not bondage but freedom in all its forms. Unity is in the meeting of minds and history shows that with time, even enemy peoples voluntarily come together! The inner workings of nature that lead to the birth of new states will not stop because mankind is in the 21st Century. On the contrary, since injustices always take time to be uncovered, and freedom and justice are only increasing, more injustices will be uncovered which will lead to the birth of more new states! This is not wrong, but accords entirely with justice and freedom, the most fundamental yearnings of the human being. We can predict the birth of more new states with great confidence because the world we know today was not shaped through justice and freedom but through force, intrigues, injustice and the rule of might. As mankind finally comes to the realisation that force, intrigues and injustices cannot create a better world, no matter how few the number of states it creates, our method of achieving unity will change from physical force, injustices and intrigues to consensus-building, the promotion of justice and freedoms as we see with the European Union. The same principle by which Africa is asserting itself in the world through the African Union is the same principle at work in the Southern Cameroons Question where a people long stifled and wrongly swindled of their own space of existence on earth are seeking justice and restitution!
The birth of new states is fundamentally anchored in mankind’s unquenchable need for freedom, the protection of identity, the self-preservation of peoples who see themselves as a one, and most important of all, justice. When we protect these principles, we cannot go wrong, no matter what happens in the short-run!

What is the Southern Cameroons Question?
The Southern Cameroons Question is the following: Does the Republic of Cameroun have jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons? If yes, on what instrument of international law is such jurisdiction founded? The Southern Cameroons Question is therefore a territorial dispute between the People of Southern Cameroons on the one hand, and the Republic of Cameroun on the other hand, arising from what in the eyes of the People of Southern Cameroons, is the illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons’ territory by the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Southern Cameroons demand that The Republic of Cameroun should honour its treaty obligations under the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b)) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 19, 20(1), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1)), by withdrawing from the territory of Southern Cameroons to its internationally recognised boundaries.
Under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, no other boundaries are recognized, both by the signatory state and the African Union, to any party to that Act, than the boundaries each signatory State inherited at independence. Under Articles Article 19 of the ACHPR, All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. Under Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.

The Southern Cameroons question is thus primarily an international territorial dispute and secondarily the crime of the subjugation of the People of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun. As a territorial dispute, the People of Southern Cameroons are calling on The Republic of Cameroun to prove to the African Union and the international community, its claimed title of sovereignty to the Southern Cameroons territory, and calling for United Nations and African Union provisions on territorial matters to be enforced.
When the Southern Cameroons question is presented in the more general terms of a demand for independence or self-determination, misunderstandings are introduced into it, because no one then knows whether the people seeking independence or self-determination are merely a minority within a legally constituted part of a sovereign state who want to secede by invoking their right to self-determination, or whether these are a people with their own international territory who have been occupied from outside by another state. Presenting the case under the demand for independence and self-determination also confuses the Southern Cameroons Question with the case of territories that had no recognized status under international law, no internationally recognised boundaries prior their occupation by the country from which they demand independence, or which had not known any modern representative government.
The Southern Cameroons’s case does not fall under any of the above sub cases of independence and self-determination. The boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not created by The Republic of Cameroun; nor is the Southern Cameroons a part of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroun is a neighbouring country to Southern Cameroons that used historical circumstances and tricks to occupy Southern Cameroons. The Southern Cameroons, as part of the League of Nations’ mandate of The Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration, acquired international personality as from the moment it became a League of Nations Mandate and subsequently a United Nations Trust Territory under the Trusteeship Agreement signed between Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and the United Nations on the other hand. It achieved self-government in 1954, had a constitution, a constitutional government, internationally recognized boundaries safeguarded with international treaties, a Prime Minister, a Parliament, its own Government structures and was preparing for independence, when in 1961, through events that will become clear as the case is unfolded, it was occupied by The Republic of Cameroun, with no paper signed, no agreement and no instrument of International Law whatsoever!
It should be stated clearly at the outset therefore that the Southern Cameroons question is not about creating a new State out of another one; it is not about breaking up a State; it is not about carving one country out of another; it is not about secession; it is not about a minority within a state seeking self-determination or independence because it is dissatisfied with its treatment. It is about ending the illegal occupation of one country by another; it is about resolving a territorial dispute between two subjects of international law; it is about territorial restitution; it is about decolonization; it is about freeing a colonized and subjugated people and giving them back their freedom; it is about correcting international fraud and theft of one people's territory, country and space of existence by another; it is about enforcing the principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act, its Charters, the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law. The withdrawal of La Republique du Cameroun from the illegally occupied Southern Cameroons territory will not diminish the legal territory of La Republique; it will not change its recognized international boundaries; it will take absolutely nothing away from it!

Where is the Southern Cameroons, as a territory, located on the African map?

Source: Dr. Ngwang Ngumne: The Southern Cameroons, Misrule or Betrayal.

When people hear the term “Southern Cameroons”, they immediately think that it refers to the southern part of the Republic of Cameroun. No, the Southern Cameroons, the territory demanding the withdrawal of the Republic of Cameroun from its territory, is not and has never been a legal part of the Republic of Cameroun. The word “Southern” in the name “Southern Cameroons" refers to the Southern part of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom's Administration. The Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration was a non-contiguous territory, separated into a Northern and Southern part by a 64-kilometer stretch of land that was not part of its territory, and so it was practically divided, by the Administering Authority, into two: the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons, with each being recognised at the UN and treated in the same capacity as a separate Trust territory. It was by virtue of this recognition that the United Nations endorsed the two separate plebiscites held in Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons by the Administering Authority, even though the need for a plebiscite was itself questionable. It was also by virtue of this recognition that the Southern Cameroons went into negotiations with La Republique du Cameroun on the nature of the union which finally never took place. As a territory, the Southern Cameroons is located to the south east of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the south west of the Republic of Cameroun, as shown in the map above.

How did it happen? A brief presentation of the facts:
There is a certain danger in narration: narration prejudices the mind if we cannot draw the right logical conclusions from the facts alleged. This is why the courts are trained in drawing the right conclusions from narrations. When one listens to people arguing a matter, the side that has no proof for its case usually adopts the tactic of losing everyone in confused and lengthy narrations that cannot add up to proof. Another danger in narration is that facts are presented without being able to interpret them correctly or show their implication and impact, if any, on the problem that requires a solution. The Southern Cameroons question is one of those issues where because it is easy to lose the hearer in the thick and dark forest of lengthy narrations, the only way to have a handle on the matter is to focus on the proofs necessary to resolve it. The one question that the People of Southern Cameroons are asking LRC to answer is this: can LRC put on the table for the world to see any valid instrument of international law by which it is claiming jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons? This proof cannot be avoided, because LRC requires the international community to recognise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Southern Cameroons. The only way the international community should do that is if the territory was acquired following the principles laid down by the international community. No country should lure the international community to become an accomplice to its violations of the principles laid down to promote peace and justice in the world by the same international community.

The facts:
Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Allied Forces decided to seize all German territories and to give them a completely new beginning under the new international system of the League of Nations. German Kamerun, one of the territories seized from Germany in Africa, was divided into two mandated territories through the Versailles Treaty, one placed under British administration and the other under the French administration. The Southern Cameroons belongs to the one under the British mandate.
After the Second World War, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and the system of mandates changed into the system of Trusts. On 13 December 1946, the United Kingdom signed a Trusteeship Agreement, with the United Nations, for the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration.
The purpose of creating Trust Territories was defined in Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter as being to lead the people of the trust territory to independence or self-government as the circumstances of each case might deman. Needless to say the fate of each Trust Territory was in no way linked in any UN instrument to that of another; each was pursuing its own destiny, each being equal to the other under international law.
Benefiting from this system of Trusts, French Cameroons, which was being administered by France under a separate Trusteeship Agreement, gained its independence on 1 January 1960.
The Cameroons under UK Administeration was divided into two parts, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons. In 1954 the Southern Cameroons gained self-government with a Prime Minister, constitutional government, a Parliament and its own state structures.
Nigeria, from which Southern Cameroons was being governed, gained independence on 1 October 1960, and in respect of the separate status of Southern Cameroons, it was no longer possible to rule it from that country. Therefore discussions began for the question of the independence of the Cameroons under UK administration.
Contrary to Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, the Administering Authority, the UK, decided, instead of granting independence, to organize two plebiscites, one in Northern Cameroons and one in Southern Cameroons. This was a shock, especially in view of the fact that the self-government of the Southern Cameroons was the last step to its independence and sovereignty.
The questions put in the Plebiscite to the People of Southern Cameroons were these: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon? OR “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?”
The People of Southern Cameroons voted by 7:3, to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The People of Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria.
On April 21 1961, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1608 (XV) in which it recognized the results of the Plebiscite, called for a Post-plebiscite Conference between the Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to reach an agreement (treaty) by which the intentions expressed in the Plebiscite could be implemented. The passing of this Resolution was the last act of the United Nations on the Southern Cameroons!!!!
Unfortunately, because of lack of follow up by the United Nations and its Administering Authority, the UK, Resolution 1608(XV) was never implemented. Instead, a series of conspiracies took place through which instead of a Treaty of Union taking place between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern Cameroons was occupied by the Republic of Cameroun and the occupation thinly veiled with a so-called federation whose constitution was written by the Republic of Cameroun and imposed on the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN Trust Territory.
Short commentary on the facts:
As stated in the introduction to this part, without understanding the meaning and interpretation of various alleged events and facts, it would be difficult to get a handle on this story. The greatest point of misunderstanding has been the interpretation of the Plebiscite. Most people, as soon as the fact is acknowledged that there was a Plebiscite in which the People of Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun, rush to the conclusion that there was valid union. By what instrument or Act? Can two subjects of international law just merge informally and without any evidence to that effect? Even if, without evidence, anyone grants that the People of Southern Cameroons joined, should he also not grant that they can withdraw? Can valid consent be acknowledged only to say “Yes” but never again to say “No”? Clearly the People who are alleged to have the consent to say “yes” must also be able to say “No”, unless there is duress and fraud on them! In addition, political unions are not a way by which one people surrender or give away their territory and space of existence to another people. Consequently, even a political union would not have given the Cameroun Republic any sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons territory. Political unions are purely administrative conveniences!
The Plebiscite was essentially a dialogue between the United Nations and the People of Southern Cameroons, with the Republic of Cameroun having no part in it. Its result was simply the answer the people of Southern Cameroons gave to the United Nations in response to the question the United Nations had put to them. How could this answer, made to the United Nations, by the People of Southern Cameroons, in response to a question put to them by the United Nations become a treaty of Union, or even the implementation of the wish expressed in the answer, or even the Act of joining? No matter how we stretch our imagination, the Plebiscite could not be a Treaty of Union, the Act of joining or the achievement of independence.
It was precisely in recognition of the fact that what the people of Southern Cameroons said in the Plebiscite could not bind them to any third party that Resolution 1608(XV) was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 April 1961. It called for the Post-Plebiscite Conference and the working out of an agreement to implement the intentions of the parties. In other words, it recognised that the implementation of the Plebiscite results, through the signing of a valid international treaty, as was necessary between two subjects of international law (the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun), could only take place after the expression of the intention through the mechanism of the Plebiscite.
It is irrelevant by what means The Republic of Cameroun managed to occupy the Southern Cameroons without a valid instrument of international law: whether it was by bribing certain people in the Southern Cameroons, by the conspiracy of the Administering Authority, by duress or whatever, does not matter. All these conspiracies, intrigues or bribery or duress are separate crimes on their own, but they cannot validly transfer the territory and posterity of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun! No one can have a greater right to the territory of the Southern Cameroons than the people of Southern Cameroons!

Why can the people of Southern Cameroons not just accept to live together with the Republic of Cameroun in peace?

It is very easy for a person whose own people and country did not accept occupation and colonization, to now suggest to the people of Southern Cameroons to live with such a crime, for we have not yet learnt to treat with others as we would like to be treated! See the joy in the eyes of a free people; see how each country celebrates its national heroes and the day it achieved independence; see how fiercely every people defend their independence! If it is so sweet for everyone else, why not for the People of Southern Cameroons? How do you suggest to a person that he does not need a house of his own, while everyone else is fighting to have a house? These are some of the more pertinent reasons why the people of Southern Cameroons cannot simply live in peace with the invaders.
(1) Peace cannot be predicated without justice, without freedom, and in a situation in which one people’s territory and resources have been fraudulently seized by another people. Talking of living together may suggest that the two peoples, the people of Southern Cameroons and the People of the Republic of Cameroun, are disputing territory or space of existence. NO! The Republic of Cameroun has its own territory and way of life, which the People of Southern Cameroons are not disputing, but has left its own territory and crossed its recognised international borders to invade and occupy the territory of Southern Cameroons and imposed an alien way of life on it. Good fences make good neighbours; that is the best way it should be! Never suggest that the fence which separates two neighbours should be broken down so that they may live together in “peace”! It is the putting up of the fence that will bring peace and so-called living together.
(2) The nature of the human being and the nature of colonization make it impossible for the two to live together. On the one hand, human nature is self-determining; that is, no one wants to surrender his own life and house to his neighbour no matter how poor or unable he may be. No people too want to surrender their homeland and space of existence to another people. Each one wants to be his own master in his own house and on his own territory. Isn’t it surprising that one people think they know the value of territory, freedom and self-determination, but the people they occupy should not know? If a homeland and territory are so good for the colonial master, why should it not be for the occupied peoples who are also human beings?
(3) The nature of colonization too makes it impossible: colonization is armed robbery and rape of the highest type, committed by one people against another. It does and can only live on the use of arms, because it is an imposition! Because the people who have been fraudulently or wrongfully occupied will resist it, the only way colonization can maintain itself is through violence, intimidation, force, arrests, torture, extra-judicial killings, and the bribing of consciences. No beautiful public speeches and sweet talk about democracy and freedoms or development can change its inherent nature to be like this. Only foreigners separated by distance or people being bribed to collaborate can fail to see this. Colonisation is always suspicious that the people it has wrongfully occupied will recover their freedom at the first opportunity, and so from this suspicion is ever prompt to suppress. It is also a system of exploitation, because the first reason for seizing other peoples’ territory is always economic; to develop your own country and impoverish the colonized peoples! Therefore in all situations of colonization, the colonized peoples are being underdeveloped; a master and servant relationship always exists. Whatever superficial dazzles are used to cover up these facts, they are only like a beautiful body covering a cancer underneath.
(4) Colonisation is a crime against humanity. To remotely suggest that some people should accept it is an insult to their humanity, especially to Africa which fought it for so long. To make such a suggestion is to empower the colonial master to do as it likes with those who, from their higher human nature, cannot accept to be subdued by colonisation. What will happen in that case is that relying on such support from the international community, nationalists will quickly be styled by the colonial master as rebels, secessionists, terrorists, trouble-makers, disgruntled few, so as to kill them for daring to question the legality of its presence on their territory. Another danger of bargaining with the devil of colonisation is that such bargains must always come back to haunt us. Therefore the international community must never suggest such a thing, because it only blesses more violence, impunity and a reign of terror from the colonial regime. The answer to colonization has never been a suggestion to live with it!
(5) The absence of justice. Colonisation by definition is armed robbery and rape all combined, and none of them tolerates resistance or opposition of any kind. They are things that can only be done by violence, not through consent. Therefore in the eyes of a colonial regime, it is never right to oppose its occupation, and therefore there can never be any justice also for those who question that occupation; the courts and the whole system will be instruments to promote that occupation! Nationalists of the country or territory occupied are therefore the natural enemies of colonization, even if kangaroo trials are organised to deceive the world. Since nationalists will never accept colonisation, to suggest that the occupied people should live with colonization is to deprive its nationalists (who are the more noble and more developed members of its population) of justice altogether, because the colonial regime is their natural enemy.
(6) There are people who because they themselves do not know what is called the cancer of colonization, find it easy to suggest that the People of Southern Cameroons should patch up with it; that the problem can be cured with good governance, decentralization and so on. This is an argument that was buried with Africa’s own fight for decolonization. At that time, many Africans argued that everything would fall into ruin; Africans were not yet ripe to govern themselves, that colonial masters governed Africans better than they would govern themselves and so on. These arguments never succeeded. Quite simply, and to put it crudely, it is better to eat your own shit than someone else’s own! The problems of colonization or external domination are a very different order of problems altogether from whatever internal problems a people may have. The problems you have in your own house are different from the problems imposed on you by a neighbour who has occupied your house. When Southern Cameroons was taken over, the first thing the colonial regime did was to shut down all its airports, wharfs, hydro-electric plants, banks and wipe out all economic infrastructure! Even the archives were seized and a large part of it forcefully carried to Yaounde! It then embarked on the wiping off from memory of every trace of the previous existence of Southern Cameroons: names of towns were changed; the flag changed; even the Plebiscite day was renamed to “Youth Day”; the unilateral federation which had been imposed to deceive the international community and fold the eyes of the inattentive Southern Cameroonians was abolished; the name of the country was progressively changed to the name The Republic of Cameroun had before its independence: La Republique du Cameroun. The two parts of the Southern Cameroons carved out into provinces of the colonial country were not linked by road and to go to each part, the roads go through La Republique du Cameroun! There has been systematic underdevelopment of the Southern Cameroons, even though the oil from which La Republique du Cameroun gets its money is from the Southern Cameroons. We say in our dialect that when you take a child's groundnuts, at least give him the peelings: in our case, not even the peelings have been given the People of Southern Cameroons!
(7) Finally, no one can have a greater right to the territory of Southern Cameroons than the People of Southern Cameroons themselves, and no one should be allowed to exercise such right. The People of Southern Cameroons are not claiming even a blade of grass from La Republque du Cameroun; all they are asking is that La Republique should withdraw from their territory to its own. No one loses anything in this withdrawal; instead peace, better relations and a new air of relief is restored for everyone. Freedom and Africa are the winners.


How does the Southern Cameroons Question offend African unity and integration?
In this part of the article we shall examine the soundness of the position that to restore the international personality of the Southern Cameroons by re-asserting its international borders and asking the Republic of Cameroon to withdraw to the borders recognized to it under the African Union Constitutive Act, the United Nations Charter and International Law in general, is contrary to African integration and unity.
As stated above, the Southern Cameroons Question cannot be discussed in a vacuum and out of context, and thus make our unverified and untested opinions the law on the matter. It can only be discussed within the context of international principles and the principles of African integration and union!
Once it is placed within the context of international law and African Union principles in particular, the question naturally arises: what are the principles of African integration, as laid down in any African Union text, that the People of Southern Cameroons are violating by asking La Republique du Cameroun to honour its treaty obligations to respect its borders as stipulated under Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act? We cannot allege a contravention of African integration without being able to cite a single principle of integration that has been violated. The People of Southern Cameroons are backing their case by a list of the various principles of integration and Union that La Republique du Cameroun is violating with respect to the Southern Cameroons People and their territory. Let anyone who challenges their case do the same!
The principles of African Integration and Union
African Unity and Integration are not what each individual may think they are; it is not a matter of private persuasion or individual opinion. All the principles that are intended to promote the unity of Africa or its union are enshrined in its various governing texts, chief among which are the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The existence of these collectively-agreed-upon principles means that no one shall be allowed to talk about African problems and disputes without basing their position or opinion on these fundamental texts! It means that as long as African problems are being resolved on the basis of those principles, African Unity is being promoted and safeguarded! Any attempt to ignore these texts and talk about African problems from private persuasions and individual motives, whether considered as political or not, is to sow more conflicts in Africa! So-called political reasons that are not founded on collective principles enshrined in the fundamental texts of the Union are incapable of promoting peace and African Unity, especially in the long-run. The persistent attempt to override existing texts and principles with private opinion merely because one is in a position of power is an evil that is killing justice and the rule of law among the very people who are called upon to uphold the collective principles that should govern the peaceful relations between African peoples. All those called upon to resolve African problems are under an obligation not to express an opinion which is not founded on the fundamental texts collectively laid down to promote African Unity and resolve African problems. If they do so, they should indeed be held to be agents of conflicts on the Continent! So much injustice, conflicts and evils continue on the continent because those called upon to uphold the collective principles of unity do not feel themselves under any obligation to uphold those principles and are never held accountable for expressing opinions and taking positions which are not based on the fundamental texts of the Union. Everyone is at liberty to ignore the principles of the Union and talk about issues on the basis of their private persuasions! And then when conflicts arise, they come and make more speeches and promise never to see more Rwandas again. All the time however, their attitudes are just grooming more conflicts.
With regard to the Southern Cameroons Question, the fundamental texts which contain the violations that the Republic of Cameroun is being charged with are the OAU Charter (Article 2); the African Union Constitutive Act (Article 4(b); and the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:
Articles 19: All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Article 20(1): All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Article 21(1): All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people de deprived of it.
Article 22(1): All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
Article 23(1): All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. The principles of solidarity and friendly relations implicitly affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirmed by that of the Organisation of African Unity shall govern relations between states.
Article 24(1): All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

Eradicating colonization in all its forms:
Those who argue that liberation struggles and the demand for an end to colonization is contrary to African unity must have a very curious idea of unity. The Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, was founded principally to end colonization in all its forms on the African continent (Article 2, OAU Charter). The mistaken idea that prevails among some people is to think that the colonization that the OAU was set up to fight was only the colonization of Africa by foreigners and not also the colonization of Africans by Africans. Colonisation as a crime against humanity does not distinguish between who is colonized and who is colonizing. Africans are certainly part of humanity! All colonization has the same motives and behaves in the same criminal way and commits the same crimes. As the highest form of armed robbery and rape, it lives only on the use of force, violence, intimidation, the buying of consciences and fraud, for it knows that the rightful owners can NEVER voluntarily surrender their life, land, resources, and posterity to another people.
Dangers of turning integration and union into an ideology
At all times, we should bear in mind the crimes ideologies have promoted. The danger of turning the quest for integration and union into an ideology is that like all ideologies, people will begin to think that the same crimes that the ideology is meant to eradicate can be committed in the name of the ideology; people begin to think that the methods by which the ideology is achieved do not matter! Yet, what separates evil and good are the methods of each! We cannot achieve integration and union by tolerating the crimes that integration and union are meant to eradicate!
A wrong definition of the Southern Cameroons Question:
Part of the argument that the Southern Cameroons Question is against African integration and unity may have stemmed from a wrong understanding or misinterpretation of what the Southern Cameroons problem is. The Southern Cameroons problem may have been wrongly understood as a minority problem; a domestic problem; a linguistic problem; a question of secession or even the break-up of a state. Now, it is clear that it is none of these. After reading the definition of the Southern Cameroons Question as presented in this article, this initial opinion should now change. At the very least, the right attitude is not to fear to hear the facts and start passing judgment, but to seek full disclosure of the facts of this extraordinary story. Only through full and complete investigation of the facts of this story can its truth be established and the problem resolved in a lasting way.
Fear of further fragmentation of Africa
Another fear of people who see the Southern Cameroons Question as a threat to African integration and unity is, as stated above, that the birth of more states will lead to the further fragmentation of Africa. These are speculative fears which are not based on a hearing of the facts of the Southern Cameroons case at all. Such generalized speculation does the injustice of lumping all cases together, although the only way to treat each case is to hear its own facts first. Each case must be treated on its own merits. If the facts of one case are tested against international principles and they pass, that is no guarantee that every other case will pass the test. Therefore this fear is prejudicial and unfounded.
This fear also suggests that African integration can justify illegal territorial acquisition, the promotion of colonisation or the injustice of one person taking over his neighbour's house on the pretext that he is doing so for tribal unity! Or that the cure to the territorial fragmentation of Africa is through the perpetuation of existing injustices or the unavowed approval of territorial theft. The big idea here is that we want to create a larger territorial unit called an integrated or united Africa through fraud or the turning of a blind eye to the practices of fraud by one African people against another! In such a case, countries that use overt force or illegal and fraudulent means to occupy territory belonging to other people would just become agents of integration, although they themselves are not grabbing their neighbours’ territories in order to turn it over to the Union! Who will buy such an ideology of integration behind which there is hidden promotion of crimes and injustices? Where have we kept our memory of history to see that all previous empires created through this method have collapsed? Quite simply, this is a perversion of the principles of the African Union.
The extreme argument
In the extreme, it can be argued that almost all present African States were created through colonization and force, so why can't the same process be used by African States to enlarge their boundaries or subjugate other African peoples? After all, this is how all empires and even most states were formed! This, in fact seems to be the subconscious argument in the minds of those who think that a blind eye should be turned to countries which are using force to prevent those African peoples whose territories have been colonized by other African countries from gaining their independence. But let us ask ourselves these questions: (1) For whose good will that be, that of the colonizers or the colonized? (2) What is this dogma and hypnotic idea about forming larger entities? (3) If they are formed by conquest, wouldn’t they be kept only by force and more crimes on those who have been conquered?; (4) Is such an idea not a desire to turn back the hands of the clock from all the progress mankind has made in rejecting the law of the jungle and instituting principles of international law governing the relations between peoples and the methods of territorial acquisition? All one needs to say to counter such an argument is this: If Africans have now decided that colonization is no more a crime, let them so inform the rest of the world and stop using the argument of their own colonization to their advantage. How can colonization, which African leaders condemn on a daily basis in their speeches, suddenly become so acceptable because it is being committed by Africans against other Africans? All colonization comes with the same crimes, and how can Africa today say that it is willing to promote those crimes by Africans against Africans, for the sake of unity? We say that we are creating a union in order to help free the African from the crimes and bondage that he has been subject to, both at national level, and from foreign occupation. How then can these same crimes be promoted for the sake of that union? Africa should in this case hail colonization for helping to unify Africa, and stop accusing colonization for Africa's backwardness in every domain. We can therefore see that even such an extreme argument does not hold water.
Argument against the recognition of more states in Africa
The argument that the recognition of more States emerging from colonisation is against African unity is bizarre, seeing that the OAU's principal goal was to welcome more African countries into its fold as they emerged from colonization. How is admitting a new member who has been liberated from European colonization different from admitting a new member who has been liberated from the colonization of another African State? Welcoming Southern Cameroons into its fold as a new member liberated from the colonization of La Republique du Cameroun has just the same liberating and joyous effect as what happened when those African countries liberated from European colonization were welcomed into the OAU!
The fear of the birth of new states also suggests that a union of fewer states will be stronger than a union of more states. What is the basis of the suggestion that a union of 54 states is less united or less strong than one of 53 states? Isn't it variety and specialization that makes for perfection and therefore perfection increases with numbers? A union of states in conflict is far less efficient and more unstable than a union with peaceful states. The more conflicts there are within States, especially conflicts arising from colonization, the more it is only a matter of time for the union to spend its energies on wars and conflicts instead of on development.
The kinds of arguments that oppose the birth of more States give an opportunity to state this truth: that the dynamics and laws that lead to the birth and death of States have not ceased to operate because we are in the 21st century or because we have formed the African Union. Anyone who cares should observe that the number of States in the world has never ceased to increase; it is only increasing. And it will only continue to increase as individual freedom and the freedom of expression of presently oppressed peoples increases. In addition, the jungle law of might will have no place in the future of humanity; justice, truth and voluntary relinquishing of what is wrong will mean that we will see a break up of many present States, thus changing the map of the world in ways which we can now little expect! Even more beautiful is the fact that after their liberation, these states, seeing and working for their own greater good in bigger entities, will voluntarily accept to be part of Union as we have seen with Europe or Africa! There is no need to resist this trend, which is only for the greater good of mankind and of all its peoples.


A united and integrated Africa is not another empire to be built on fraud and territorial theft. All former empires collapsed because they were built through force and injustices. All illegal territorial acquisition, to build larger countries, like empires were built, simply sows new seeds of future disintegration, because human nature will never accept those injustices. This is why the principle of self-determination is a universal principle. It is because mankind has recognized that no country built on theft, force and injustices can last that the method by which unions, integration and unity is built today is by voluntary and mutual consent. If it is even remotely suggested that African integration is secretly based on a belief in injustice and fraud, no country will buy into it anymore! It is also clear that there will be no reason to respect justice or any law in such entities created through fraud and theft by those who were able to do so! These unconscious or premeditated tendencies of trying to create larger territorial units by fraud and injustice, or by turning a blind eye to them, are the same tendencies that Africa has continued to condemn in the European colonization of Africa. How can Africa be heard to be contemplating the same methods and acts? This is imperialism calling itself integration! These things enable us to see at what level our minds are and why we continue to create conflicts in the name of solving them.
CONCLUSION

Building one world is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process. Each people will come to accept the idea of a larger union only at their own good time as the illusions and fears they hold are conquered by the evidence of their own higher good in the larger unions which they may join. If we are impatient about this, inevitably we will seek to bypass the consent of those involved, and that is the beginning of future trouble because the people have not inwardly come to recognition of their own good in a larger union, but have been forced, precipitated or deceived into it.
African unity is like world unity, like family unity, or tribal unity. If the world cannot be united by subordinating and colonising other parts of the world, then Africa cannot be united by promoting colonization among its peoples and countries. How many African countries while they were struggling to free themselves from colonization would have listened to the argument that colonization was for the unity of the world? Today, Africa, through the African Union, is struggling to unite itself and assert its independence; is this against the unity of the world? How then can the fight for the people of Southern Cameroons to assert themselves and recover their territory long swindled from them be against the unity of Africa? No one unites the tribe by occupying the house of his neighbours or by instituting forced marriages! Unity is not slavery; it can never be! The sooner our ideas of union and unity are clarified, the better it will be for Africa, because these arguments betray horrendous obscurities from which most of Africa's conflicts are generated by those who have been appointed to foster unity. It is curious to note the divergence between the private persuasions of those who are called upon to work for Africa’s unity and the fundamental principles enshrined in the basic texts that have been collectively laid down to promote unity in Africa and govern the peaceful relations between its peoples!
In law, it is said that there is no agreement unless there is a meeting of minds. Therefore unity can be achieved only through agreement and therefore through greater freedom and greater justice in accordance with the principles entrenched in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Union's various governing texts. Colonisation is destructive of union, because it is destructive of any agreement. Where there is no justice, no freedom, no transparency, no full disclosure, there can be no agreement and therefore also no union or integration.
By seeking justice and restitution of their territory from which they have been wrongfully swindled, the people of Southern Cameroons are not going against African integration and unity. On the contrary, they are promoting it by invoking the principles on which integration and union are founded. And if it became necessary in the future for each people to turn over their territories for the purpose of integration or union, the territory would be turned over, not to a neighbour trying to swindle more territory for itself, but to the Union. The People of Southern Cameroons believe that African integration is built on consent; full and transparent disclosure of its goals and the methods to attain them; on the fact that integration and union embody mechanisms for justice, common good and values that could not be achieved otherwise and therefore which will attract all African peoples to voluntarily join because they see their own higher good in it.
However long colonization may last, it will never make the colonized country and territory a legal part of the colonizing country. This is why African countries were able, after, in some cases centuries, to still reassert their right to their own existence and sovereign independence. What establishes and proves colonization in modern history is the method by which the territory under dispute was acquired. The illegal acquisition of territory and the subjugation of one people by another are condemned world-wide and in all international legal instruments and declarations. In the case of the colonization of the Southern Cameroons by the Republic of Cameroun, colonization is conclusively proved by the fact that there is no Treaty of Union between the Republic of Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons and there is no International Treaty by which the boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon have been extended from what they were at the attainment of its independence on January 1 1960 (when the Southern Cameroons was still a UN Trust Territory), to now include the territory of the Southern Cameroons. Add to this the fact that the People of Southern Cameroons reject the rule of La Republique du Cameroun over their territory and are demanding that such illegal rule come to an immediate end. All narrations, however intricate, which cannot produce the proofs that La Republique du Cameroun’s jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons is founded on International Law, are of no avail. Secondly, colonization is also proved beyond doubt by the manner in which the colonized people are treated with respect to their struggle to assert their own independent existence. Colonial regimes live on intimidation, arrests, torture and imprisonment of liberation fighters, and on the buying of the consciences of those known in history as "collaborators"; they can never dare to face justice, law and truth! In the case of the Southern Cameroons' struggle, the colonial regime is so terrified of the truth that it has never for once accepted to sit down with the various liberation movements to discuss the matter, despite the numerous calls for dialogue. Instead, counting on its guns and prisons, it has arrested, tortured and imprisoned many Southern Cameroonians merely for daring to question the legal grounds of the colonial regime's pretended jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons.
Those who raise the argument that the recognition of new States or the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their peoples is contrary to African unity only thereby expose their own grave ignorance of the principles of Union entrenched in the governing texts of the African Union, as well as their enormous oblivion to the one fundamental trend of human history, which is that freedom is the future of mankind. Africa was able to free itself only because it insisted on the liberation of forcefully occupied territories and their recognition as new states! If some people think union can be achieved through the promotion of colonization, then let them put it down as a union principle!
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the Southern Cameeroons case is founded entirely on African Union principles and that the case can be resolved only by upholding those principles. Not one principle of Union can be shown to have been violated by the people of Southern Cameroons. It does not help Africa to lay down beautiful principles and then shy away from applying them when the injustices that can only be resolved by applying those principles are brought to light. The courage to uphold African Union principles will determine whether Africa will come out of conflicts or will sink further into them.

Radicalbrother

Dear all,
The chairman of the SDF must be joking. A lame man beating the drum of a war will be crushed by the same war.
Is this not thesame noise he made when the National constitution was about to be modified? Now is ELECAM. Keep on clued to your chairmans seat without any progress. I recall in one of the interviews granted to you over the CRTV , you were asked whether you could not step down and give way to some one else to paddle the affairs of the party. You refused and demanded who has ever asked Biya to step down.
There is no difference between you and the tyrant. After all, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and that of tyrants. If you are killed in such a war, you will simply join the host of innocent others who have gone ahead in the name of this your NGO party you are using to enrich yourself.

Fon.

Bob Bristol,
Your approach is alreay a failed one. How do you hope to attract people to the struggle when you can´t acknowledge the tremendous contribution of Fru Ndi so far to the struggle.
In general, when one aspires to take over a struggle, nursing any hopes to succeed, he must first pay tributes to those who have kept the struggle alive.
You seems to think that change has not come to Cameroonians so far, solely because SDF/Fru Ndi. If that is your point, then you have a wrong analysis of the problem and therefore can never arrive at the right solution.
A good analysis of a problem is aready a 50% solution. You seems to under estimate what it takes to remove a dictator from power.

rexon

I dont know who the hell these politicians keep referring to as the international community. The international community as far as i know is the UN, IMF, World Bank, Western governments all of whom have offices in Yaounde. They witnessed the recent killing of Cameroonians by the regime after they went out to protest against the constitutional manipulation and rising prices of basic commodities, they also witnessed the shooting of students at UB who were protesting corruption into their medical school, they also witnessed the theft of Tole Tea, Ndu Tea, etc in the sham privatisation, etc. If they have not put pressure on Biya until now, then they are satisfied with the the way he is going about his feymania which is of interest to Western powers. The responsibility to remove Biya and institute good governance in that country lies squarly on the Cameroonian people. Let no one fool himself that even one day these people decide to remove Biya from power, they would be doing so for the interest of the people of Cameroon.

Dr Agbormbai,

It appears you do not know how the system in Cameroon works. What do you call peaceful demonstrations? Experience has shown us that Cameroonians have always been demonstrating peacefully. They have never willingness decide to go out and burn places. It is the CPDM that normally sends criminals and crooks to burn places when people are striking in their bid to kill people and quell down the strike actions. So get your facts clear before you comment about a country you apparently left decades ago.

Cheers.

Watesih

Bob Bristol,
You are playing the denial game,and behaving like a man who is trying very hard to cheat his barber.You are kicking against the opposition ,and at the same time trying to form another opposition group.According to you,it is only the wonderful minds of this forum that will bring about a veritable change in Cameroon.We have some of the best minds in the world in cameroon.Our problem is not the lack of proposals.Our problem is disenfranchisement.You don`t need to apologise to SDF smypathisers,because they already know that you have a fight with their chairman.Your call for him to hand over the SDF is very familiar here.Rather than calling for proposals here,why not just go and take over the SDF,and bring about some sanity!

A.A Agbormabai,
You are not doing badly.Keep coming out!We on this forum are still at the same point you left us when you said the situation in Cameroon was not bad,and that the government needed to implement policies.Your new song is to hang on to the military.Calling for the military in Cameroon to do something is like asking the Supreme court to overturn elections in favour of the opposition,or asking the National Assembly to vote laws in favour of the same opposition.You are slowly coming to terms with yourself,but you need more time,because you are still pretending that in Cameroon people can peacefully demonstrate until their demands are met.I would like you to read a bit of History,and you may learn that the French Revolution was violent,else they wouldn`t have overthrown the Monarchy and its tentacles.There will never be any peaceful demonstrations in any modern day African country.When a country that is not at war has the highest chunk of the budget reserved for the military,it is because the regime in place owes its existence to this very military.So even a sneez is enough for military leaders to crush anyone.What peaceful demonstrations would you expect in a country that has military zones with operational commanders?It is more or less a garrison state.

ndongoreh

Mr Chairman,i think you dont need to alert the international community about the possibility of war in Cameroon.This very appeal has been made time and again and no response ever came from the international community.This international community are the very people who have made Biya to be perpertually in power,they have enslaved southern Cameroons to la Republique du Cameroon.What do you think the international community can do or should do to avert war in Cameroon?When in 1990 your party won the elections You were robbed of your victory and the international community did nothing to restore your victory.War is not the solution to our numerous problems.Look at the present events in the middle east.Palestinians are killed dailly in their numbers but the international community has not up till now being able to ask Isreal to stop the killing.We made Biya the monster he is.We conferred him with all sorts of titles ,fon of fons,chief of chiefs etc and blessed him .What we need to do to oust Biya is right thinking.We need a change of mentality in Cameroon.The people need to know and realise that Cameroon needs a change of leadership.You as the chairman of your party need to step down and give the opportunity to another candidate to challenge Biya.We need a change of mentality.Thats how we can succeed.

ndongoreh

Mr Chairman,i think you dont need to alert the international community about the possibility of war in Cameroon.This very appeal has been made time and again and no response ever came from the international community.This international community are the very people who have made Biya to be perpertually in power,they have enslaved southern Cameroons to la Republique du Cameroon.What do you think the international community can do or should do to avert war in Cameroon?When in 1990 your party won the elections You were robbed of your victory and the international community did nothing to restore your victory.War is not the solution to our numerous problems.Look at the present events in the middle east.Palestinians are killed dailly in their numbers but the international community has not up till now being able to ask Isreal to stop the killing.We made Biya the monster he is.We conferred him with all sorts of titles ,fon of fons,chief of chiefs etc and blessed him .What we need to do to oust Biya is right thinking.We need a change of mentality in Cameroon.The people need to know and realise that Cameroon needs a change of leadership.You as the chairman of your party need to step down and give the opportunity to another candidate to challenge Biya.We need a change of mentality.Thats how we can succeed.

7512wilson

It is alarming how ungracious Cameoonians are. Despite all John Fru Ndi has been through in the struggle for a better, free and democratic Cameroon, putting his life and his family on the line, and doing every thing to avoid a civil war in Cameroon and yet we still have unscrupulous and ungracious imbeciles coming to this forum to write trash about Fru Ndi and SDF. Sure Fru Ndi and the SDF have made some mistakes along the way which is Human. Fru Ndi himself has openly admitted to making mistakes and seeking forgiveness from his followers. But for people to totally ignore what this man has been through for the sake of freedom at a time when others were running and hiding for their safety is truly heartbreaking. Many have broken away from the SDF to create their own Political groups but have failed. Others have gone back to join the CPDM monsters and yet SDF is still alive. SDF is more than a Party, SDF is a movement, an ideology, a symbol, a vision and a message. Sure it seems like SDF has lost its popularity, but donot be fooled. SDF is still alive though in the idle mood. Every child in Cameroon from about 2 years of age and up know what SDF stands for. Almost every living Cameroonian knows who Ni John Fru Ndi is. Now tell me of any living Cameroonian who comes close to such a recognition or any opposition Party in Cameroon that has such a symbolic value as the SDF. The answer is NONE. The only reason SDF has survived and continue to survive despite all the trials and tribulations is largely because of the man Ni John Fru Ndi. Fru Ndi is like a trade mark figure in the party and i pray he stays right where he is. He started the fight for freedom and just like Nelson Mandela did, just like Kenyatta did, just like Gandhi did, and many other freedom fighters dead and alive. Until the fight for freedom is won, the founders and pioneers never quit. It would have been pointless for John Fru Ndi to begin this movement just to quit at some point. Freedom fighters do not quit. So John Fru Ndi Sir, keep up the fight and do not yield to all this pressure to step down. You are the icon of the movement and you will make mistakes and fumbles but we are your followers and we will pray for you even when we are critical of some of your decisions. We will seek to fix SDF when it is broke instead of running to join the CPDM. Cameroonians are pessimistic by their nature and sometimes we give up too soon. There will never be a perfect leader. So Cameroonians will have to choose where they belong. You are either for SDF or the Opposition or you are for the cursed CPDM and Government. Those who are on the sidelines are no better than those they are criticizing.
Good Luck and God bless Cameroon and the Social Democratic Front.

Bob Bristol

Fon
I have always acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the SDF from its inception but as I said recently, we cannot continue to compensate present failures with past glories. My major concern is how to rekindle the flames of optimism that Cameroonians once had in the main "opposition party" (The SDF). And please do not tell me to go and form my own party. As Dr TAN said, we need the concerted effort of the people to form and sustain a good party; a party with the backing of the people. I wonder if the SDF can boast of this.

The most important preoccupation I had was to find a way through which we can form a team. Call it a club. Call it whatever. But we need to start something. Something that can expose the opinions of the "best brains" of this forum to the Cameroonian Public. We can't afford to keep on being disunited all the time. I mean in terms of ideas. This is what has kept the monstrous regime in power all this while. Some of our ideas will be compromised, at least, for now.
My major fear is that at the end of the day, some of the wonderful commentators of this forum would leave the stage. Leaving the stage is, however, not a problem provided something significant has been achieved. Such is life.

Besides, we cannot afford to anticipate failure now. What we need is to assemble workable ideas in order to get rid of these individuals who want to cling on their seats either as president or as head of "opposition".

We need to do something now. Those who come to this forum to sow seed of discord, we know you by your words. I'm addressing this to those whose pain can be read from their wordings. Those who recognised the potentials of Cameroonians and are conscious of the regressive trends that the country is taking. Those who cry for a generation bedeviled by unscrupulous politicians. We have spoken, we would continue to speak but it's time for us to do something. The first step is to assemble the soul searching comments of this forum and expose them to a broader community. Let us think of what next.

May God bless this struggle


DR TAN OF CAMEROON


DEAR ALL
WHEN EVER CHAIRMAN NEE JOHN MAKES A NATIONAL STATEMENT , ON CAMEROONIAN ISSUES, IT ATTRACTS A LOT OF EMOTIONS AND SENTIMENTS.
I AM AT A LOSS, WHEN WE ADDRESS , POLITICAL ISSUES , IN GENERALITIES.
JOHN FRU NDI IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRONTLINE OPOSITION IN CAMEROON. IT,S EVEN UNBELIEVABLE FOR THE SDF TO BE ALIVE TODAY, KNOWING THE CHALLENGES , IT HAS GONE THROUGH. MUNA CAME CLOSE , WITH THE GREATEST TEST , WITH THE SDF. I SILENTLY FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTUION AND BILAWS OF THE SDF PARTY, MUNA HELD HIS GROUND, UNTILL THE DECISIONS OF THE MEZAM COURTS. AND THE DR TAMANJUNG ADDRESS TO THE PARTY IN ENGLAND. AND THEN A THE TEST FOR POWER AND POSITION[THE PARTIES THAT SAID HE SHLOULD JOIN THEM DISSOLVING THE SDF. THAT WAS MUNA,S MISTAKE. POLITICALLY AND LEGALLY HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONTINUED THE FIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND TO THE HAGUE, BUT HE TOOK THE NARROW PART THAT LEAD TO HIS POLITICAL DEATH[ GOING TO JOIN TO PARTIES , WITHOUT WINNING A PARLIAMENTARY SEAT. THAT MADE MR FRU NDI APPEAR A VERY STRONG POLITICIAN, WEATHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. THEN CAME THE POLINUS JUA , ATTEMPT IN BAMENDA , THAT HE CRUSHED HIM SO BADLY. HE HAD ALSO BEATEN MUNA BEFORE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES.
MR FRU NDI IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SDF PARTY, ONTILL THE PARTY DECIDE ACT OTHERWISE, IT,S THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
THOUGH, IT IS SAID THAT ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL, CAMEROON IS SIGNATURE AND MEMBER TO CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
1 UDEAC
2 AFRICAN UNION
3 FRANCOPHONIE
4 COMMON WEALTH
5 UNITED NATIONS
AND BY EXTENTIOS THEIR SPECIALIZEDA ND DEVELPOMENTAL AGENCIES[I,M,F. WORLD BANK. UNESCO ECT]
AS A RECOGNIZED FRONTLINE OPPOSITION LEADER, YOU ALERT THESE BODIES OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN ONE OF IT,S MEMBER STATES, ESPECAILLY ISSUES WHICH THREATENE, HUMAND RIHGTS AND PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.
YOU ARE ALSO MINDFUL THAT , THESE ORGANISATIONS RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGN STATES, AND THEIR BEST INTENTIONS CAN BE VETOED BY CERTAIN MEMBER STATES. THEY TRY TO BRING CHANGE THROUGH SANCTIONS , BUT MOST SANCTIONS , DONOT AFFECT THE DICTATORS THEMSELVES, BUT THE COMMON MAN.
MR JOHN FRU NDI HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING BY THIS PROCLAMATION. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS EXPECTED FROM HIM. THAT IS ALSO WHY THE COOMON WEALTH IS CHANGING IT,S POSITIONAL STATEMENTS.
THOSE OF US WHO DONOT KNOW POLITICS, DONOT KNOW THAT A LOT OF POLITICS GO WITH VIOLENCE, BECAUSE POLITICS IS A STRUGGLE, OF WHO GETS THE GOVT, WHAT POLICIES ARE TO BE RUNNED AND WHEN.
GHANDI DIDNOTRUN POLITICAL PARTIES, HE WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER IN INDIA.
MANDELLA , WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE ANC, UNTILL AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON, AND DIDNOT KEEP IT AFTER, HE HANDED OVER TO THABO MBEKI.
FRU NDI WAS ADRESSING PROBLEMS RELATING TO ALL CAMEROONIANS NOT ONLY ANGLOPHOES[ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM]
FIGHTING AMNY WARS AT THE SAME TIME DISTRACT.
DR NTUBA THOMPSON

DR TAN OF CAMEROON


DEAR ALL
AS I CONTINUE MY CONTRIBUTIONS, I WILL LIKE TO SAY THAT , WE ARE THE REASONS WHY CAMEROON HAS NOT CHANGED. WE ADDRESS ISSUES ON THE AIR. WHEN WE ARE TALIKNG ABOUT THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM, LET IT BE IN CONTEXT.
WHAT IS SOUTHERN CAMEROON, NORTHWEST, + SOUTH WEST + GONGOLA STATE OF NIGERIA THAT WAS ALLOWED , TO GO IT,S OWN WAY[NORTHEN PART OF WEST CAMEROON], LET US UNDERSTAND THAT THE NORTHWEST IS NOT THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF WEST CAMERON, BUT GONGOLA STATE.
IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF WEST CAMEROON, THE SOUTHWESTERNER NEVER WANTED LA, RPUBLIC, THAT IS WHY DR ENDELLEY OPTED FOR NIGERIA, BUT BECAUSE THE VOTE, FROM THE NORTHWESTENERS , WAS OVERWELMING, FONCHAS AND THE MUNAS WON. THESE CREATED , THE FRICTIONS IN THE ANGLOPHONE REGION. AND THAT IS WHY THE SCNC IS NEVER MAKING ANYHEAD WAY, BECAUSE PEOPLE , GO THE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES AND SHOW EVIDENCES.
DO WE ALL KNOW THAT , WE ANGLOPHONES CHAIRED THE PARLIAMENTS THAT CHANGED THE CONSTITUTIONS. FONCHAS AND THE MUNAS AND THE FONKANSHANGS, THEN THEY CAME TO ACCI AND II IN BUEA TO SAY THEY WRE SORRY. DUE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES TOOK PLACE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THE INTERANTIONAL COMMUINITIES LOOK, AT , NOT SOME NOISE THAT WE ARE NOTED FOR MAKING.
WHAT HAPPENED IN BAKASSI, NIGERIA, TOOK IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, FORGETTING THAT , THERE WERE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS , UPON WHICH , A RULING WAS MADE TO OUR FAVOUR , EVEN THOUGH NIGERIA KEPT BLAMING FRANCE. IT MADE IT,S OWN MISTAKES WHICH WOLE SOYIKA CALLED THE ATTENTION OF THE NIGERIAN NATION TO. IS THE HAGUE NOT PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.
IN THE CIVIL WAR OF AMERICA, THE SOUTHERN STATES , WANTED TO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES, DID YOU SEE THE INTERANTIONAL COMMUNITY COME TO HELP THEM. THEY FOUGHT, ON E PERSON WON, BEFORE JESUS COMES , THERE WILL BE WAR AND RUMOURS OF WAR. THE BEST SETTLEMENT , IS NOT A FORCED O0NE, THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO SOLUTION IN THE MIDLE EAST TODAY , WITH ALL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MEDDLING. MR BIYA KNOWS HOW THE INTERAQNTIONAL COMMUNITY , OPERATES ACCORDING TO BINDING PRINCIPLES.
MR BIYA , IS AN INTELLIGENT/EXPERIENCED STATE MAN WHO IS USING HIS KNOWLEDGE TO DIVIDE AND RULE CAMEROONIANS.
AS AN AUTHOR OF SWELA STAND FOR ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM, I FIND THE PROCLAMATIONS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, UNINFORMED.
THE SDF OPTION TO THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM WAS TO HAVE NORTHWEST TO BE IN THE SAME REGION , WITH THE WESTERN PROVINCE, AND THE SOUTHWEST, GROUPED WITH LITTORAL.
BUT SOTHWESTERNERS WANT AN AUTHONOMOUS SOUTHWEST REGION, WITH SELF DETERMINATION[ELECTING IT,S OWN GOVERNMENT IN A DECENTRALISED STATE,IN THE FEDERAL UNITED REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON.
DURING THOSE TIMES THE MASSES FELT GRADE 6TH GRADUATES WERE BETTER QULIFIED , THAN MORE EDUCATED PEERS, SO THEY CAME TO SAY SORRY WE MADE MISTAKES. SINCE WE LOVE THE BIYAS,AND JOHN FRU NDI,S WHO ARE ALWAYS HUMBLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR POOR JUDGEMENTS AS MISTAKES, LET US CONTINUE TO HELP , THE PRINCIPLES SAND MACHINATIONS OF DIVIDE AND RULE HAVE IT,S FULL COURSE.
MUGABE HAS NOT GONE, BUSH IS ON HIS WAY OUT. WHEN OBAM WAS CAMPAIGHING AND SAYING MUSHARAFF IS THE WAY TO THE VICTORY TO THE WAR ON TERROR, AND IF HE HAD HIS WAY , HE WILL HAV ETO LEAVE, MUSHARRAFF, QUIETLY LEFT, NOT THE INTERANTIONAL COMMUNITY.
POLITICS IS A STRUGGLE AND IT COULD BE REALLY SLOW. ONLY CAMEROONIANS HAVE , SOLUTIONS TO THEIR PROBLEMS, ENGLAND TOOK IT,S DIPLOMATIC SEVICES TO GHANA, HAS IT HELPED. EMBASSY IN CAMEROON OR NOT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, AND THOSE EMBASSIES, ARE FOR THOSE FOREIGHN COUNTRIES AND NOT HOST COUNTRIES.
CAMEROONIANS ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE CPDM, NOT AMERICANS OR NIGERIANS.
CAMEROONIANS ARE ,MEMBERS OF THE ARM FORCES , NOT BROTONS.
IN WEST CAMEROON, ONLY SOUTHWEST PROVINCE AND NORTHWESTERN CAMERON[GONGOALSTATE] VOTED NOT TO JOIN LA REPUBLIC, THE NORTHWEST VOTED TO JOIN THEM. READ EYE WITNES AACOUNT BY NN MBILLE,
DOCUMENTS OF THE 13
SWELA STAND ON THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM.
AS CORDINATOR FOR SWELA USA, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, THERE IS A SOUTHWEST POSITION TO THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM, THOUGH WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT , THE SCNC BY CLAMOURING FOR REDRESS OF INJUSTICES, MARGINALISATIONS AND CHANGES IN THE FOUBAN ACCORD, INDIRECTLY PROMOTES THE FIGHT FOR SOUTHWEST DEVELPOMENT, THE SOUTHWESTERNER WAS FORCED TO THIS UNION WITH LA, REPUBLIC AND FILLS THAT IT HAS A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION. ADDRESSING NATIONAL PROBLEMS FROM IT,S OWN LOCAL REALITIES , TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
THERE ARE MANY ISSUES AND INTERST GROUPS , PARTICULARLY THE ARMFORCES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STALEMATE IN CAMEROON.
BIYA IS A CAMERON PRBLEM.
SOUTHERN CAMEWROON IS AN ANGLOPHONE PRONLEM
THARE ARE ALSO FRANCOPHONE PROBLEMS AND NORTHIST PROBLEM. EVEN IF THERE IS A CIVIL WAR , IT WILL BE BETWEEN WHO AND WHO.
CAMEROONIANS AGAINST BIYA,
CAMEROONIANS AGAINST FRANCOPHONES
CIVILIANS AGAINST MILLARY
ANGLOPHONES , AGAISNT ANGLOPHONES , AGAINST ANGLOPHONES.
SEE YOU IN WORSHINTON FOR THE INAUGURATIONS.

DR THOMPSON NTUBA MD. Ph.D

Tekum Mbeng

Dr Ntuba aka Dr Tan,

Can you define who a Southwestener is?

Remember that no liter of petroleum has been found in Fako. The underdevelopment of the SW province is highlighted by poor roads despite the plantations, oil and produce.

Recently, it took the courage of the Northwest MP for Momo PC Fonso to ask the Biya Government why the Victoria natural shipyard project was being short-changed for sandy Kribi.

Where on earth were Fako MPs?

Answer: In Ngomba house with Premier Inoni. That Ngomba house is not after a program for the people. Self interest ruins our leaders. Inoni is ripe to be replaced.

vita

Cameroonians should be ready to spill their blood for a change.SouthAfrica,Kenya,etc.We need to determain what we can do to walk the talk.But we are under a dictator who has paralyze our millitary personnels and controls them 24/7.This guy Biya is a feyman and he knows how the game takes place.Trust me brothers and sisters we should unite, I know it will not take a year or a decade but oneday we will be there.

vita

Cameroonians should be ready to spill their blood for a change.SouthAfrica,Kenya,etc.We need to determain what we can do to walk the talk.But we are under a dictator who has paralyze our millitary personnels and controls them 24/7.This guy Biya is a feyman and he knows how the game takes place.Trust me brothers and sisters we should unite, I know it will not take a year or a decade but oneday we will be there.

Fon.

Bob Bristol,
I have said, your main problem is that you have a wrong analysis of the political situation on the ground. Once the analysis of problem is wrong, you will never arrive at the solution.
First, I will like you to asnwer the following queations before we can move on:
1. Who do you think won the 1992 presidential elections in Cameroon?
2. Do you think if you gather the best brains on this forum, form a political force, Biya´s current Elecam members will declare you winner if you actually deserve a win?
What do you think is causing voters´ apathy and how do you hope to overcome the problem?
If you reflect well over the above questions, then you will begin to have a feeling of the problem ont the ground.

Tekum Mbeng

Remember President Paul Biya's pro-French Language doctrine at the Paris Interview in which he dreamt of a part of Africa in which pure French is spoken? The Cameroonian leader was out of touch and dangerously out of alignment with trends in France herself.

Check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7835958.stm

Someone needs to send this link to the intellectually-challenged and ethnofacist Cameroonian minister of higher education.

red flag

TAN YOU ARE AN OLD FOOL

HWATS UDEAC? OR YOU MEAN CEMAC. I BET YOU DONT KNOW THAT ALL FRENCH COLONIES ARE
MEMBERS OF CEMAC, AND BRITISH CAMEROOON IS
ACTUALLY IN WEST AFRICA, AND FRENCH CAMEROUN IS
IN CENTRAL AFRICA, RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO CEMAC, BRITISH CAMEROONS RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO ECOWAS, THE FRENCH CAMEROUN ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF BRITISH CAMEROONS FOR 46 YEARS MUST NOT BRAINWASH THE FACTS FROM YOUR MINDS.

WE MUST KEEP TELLING OUR CHILDREN ,THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, TILL THE DAY
THE LAST AFRICAN -FRENCH MAN LEAVES OUR COUNTRY. OURS ONLY TO RULE THE WAY WE SEES FIT

Bob Bristol

Fon
I have a high respect for some of your opinions but at the moment, we face an urgent need for change. We don't have to be hysterical about our beliefs. We need solutions. That solution may not come from an election only. Any workable solution must minimise the structures put in place by Biya; such as ELECAM. I see sensitization and unity as milestones towards achieving this. A cross section of Cameroonians have lost taste in politics due to the activities of the monstrous regime in power and the failed efforts of the SDF for 19 good years. We need to revive the 1990 spirit that the SDF generated in Cameroonians or the February 2008 general uprising that ended in a fiasco. But this time around, we need a veritable leader or group of determined individuals to push on till the victory is secured. We can do this if we are united. A section of the military can be of help. They are not all stupid. It may even entail some sacrifices.We do not wish for it, but it is a possibility. Great countries have gone through this.

We can do this.

7512wilson

My dear forum mates, I know how painful things are in Cameroon but do not be despair. No human being can overcome the wave of change when the time comes. Believe me when i say that the Biya's regime is at its winding stage. We all know why Biya chose Fonkam and his gang to head ELECAM. Biya has no choice but to hang on to power for as long as possible. In fact, Biya needs to hang on to power in order to fulfill the old prophecy that says "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" "As you make your bed, so shall you lay on it". A 'lie' cannot live for ever. Biya's regime has been big fat lie and the truth will always outlast a lie. Dear friends brace yourself, for the time is near when every thing will come crashing down. The truth shall be victorious. May God bless Cameroon.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Google




AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Mobilise this Blog
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported