src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
By Moy Manyi Eyong
For a regime built on violence and the threat of violence, the May 13-27, 2009 decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’s Rights (ACHPR) can be compared only to driving an aspen, ash or white thorn stake through the heart of a vampire with a single blow.
LIES:
First the Commission took exception to the lies from the Cameroon government in relations to mails sent to them and did spare a second to point out what a dubious bunch they were before getting down to the case proper:
On page 6 paragraphs 28, 30 & 32 the Commission wrote:
“…28. On 3 October 2003, the Respondent State [Cameroon] informed the Secretariat that it had not received a copy of the communication forwarded to it by DHL on 9th June 2003...
30. On 27 October 2003, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the Complainant’s submissions on admissibility to the Respondent State and informed the latter that the Secretariat would give the accompanying documents to the delegation of Cameroon attending the 34th Ordinary Session. The Secretariat also informed the Respondent State that the DHL office in Cameroon had confirmed delivery of the communication.”
In other words you lied that you did not receive the mail.
“…32. At its 34th Ordinary Session held from 6th to 20th November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the matter and decided to defer consideration on admissibility of the matter to the 35th Ordinary Session because the Respondent State claimed that they were unaware of the communication.”
In other words you [Cameroon] lied to the Secretariat and to the full Commission. But that is not all either.
IMPERSONATION:
At page 7, paragraph 41, the court wrote:
“41. At its 36th Ordinary Session held in Dakar, Senegal from 24 November-7 December 2004, the African Commission decided to defer its consideration on the merits to the next session. It also rejected an application to stay the proceedings by third parties purporting to represent the applicants [SCNC & SCAPO] claiming to have entered into negotiation with the Respondent State [Cameroon].”
In plain language you [Cameroon] tried to trick us by bringing some dupes here to lie that they were representing the SCNC—imagine a state worth the name recruiting con men to go and lie on its behalf to an international body!
Human Rights Violations
Next, the Cameroon regime really infuriated the court by daring to repeat the discredited 19th century notion that sovereignty places the state above everything including human rights, and doing so before a 21st century international institution put in place exactly to bury that same archaic notion. As if to ask where Cameroon has been all these years, the Commission gave Cameroon a lecture on "Sovereignty in the 21st Century for Dummies". See page 9 paragraphs 63-65 and pages 11-15 on the Commissions’ verdict which is attached below.
Before we continue reviewing the slamming which the Cameroon regime received from the Commission for attempting to block the hearing of the case on technicalities, look at page 15 paragraphs 91 & 92, and page 16 .
THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION AS STATED BY CAMEROON TO DETERMINE IF THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS HAS A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, AN ASSERTION THAT COULD BE EXPRESSED THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS; THE ACHPR CANNOT DETERMINE IF THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. I stopped to emphasize this because the Communiqués published by the Cameroon regime as their supposed victory statement is a reproduction of the above argument; which was thrown out by the Commission.
On the remainder of page 15, Cameroon literally concedes that it has been a government that engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights as accused by the plaintiffs, but that these crimes were committed before the creation of the Commission, hence they do not count. This is a damning admission of guilt by Cameroon; still, this is a damning admission and one that should be used in the campaign for donor nations to cut funding for the Cameroon regime for its consistent pattern of violating internationally recognised human rights.
To Cameroon’s argument, the probably irritated Commissioners provided an ocean of precedents that drowned Cameroon. One would expect a regime that spends 100 million Euros for a presidential vacation would employ a legal team more competent than this one which set them up for such ridicule.
On page 16 para 96 & 97, the Commission points out to the Cameroon lawyers that EVEN THOUGH THE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED BEFORE THE INSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, THE FACT THAT THE REGIME HAS NOT YET TAKEN MEASURES TO CORRECT ITS PAST CRIMES; LIKE PAYING COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS, THE CAMEROON LAWYERS CAN TAKE A HIKE, THE COMMISSION WILL LOOK AT THE CASE. One of those places where you say Amen while reading a document.
NOW TO THE COURT ROOM:
Starting from Page 16, paragraph 98; the Commission takes a look at the case in which The Southern Cameroonians accuse the Cameroon regime of having violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 17(1) in respect of individual Southern Cameroonians; and Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23(1), and 24 in respect of the Peoples of Southern Cameroons; and the general obligation under article 26 of the African Charter.
WE START WITH THE PART OF THE CASE RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS
GUILTY on violation of Article 2, the Cameroon regime did not dispute accusation of violating Article 2 of the African Charter on the first count (Page 17, para 102); hence the Commission found Cameroon guilty as charged. On the second count, the Cameroon regime failed to convince the Commission that it took enough steps to solve the problem; hence guilty on second count (page 18, para 208).
LACK OF ENOUGH EVIDENCE: On the violation of article 3 on unequal treatment before the courts, the Commission threw the accusation out for lack of enough evidence.
GUILTY on the violation of article 4 (page 19, para 112) the Cameroon regime tried to argue that the SCNC and SCAPO did not have official autopsy documents for the victims of the regime (in other words the regime had thought, at the time, that by threatening doctors not to issue autopsy documents to victims murdered at protests they had disappeared proof of their killing of those Southern Cameroonians, the photos in the press not withstanding). The Commission took time to point out that Cameroon did not refuse that people had died, rather they focused on the reliability of the evidence of their death. The Commission then turned around and hammered the regime with a guilty verdict for not investigation those deaths, hence not protecting the rights of the victims.
GUILTY on the violation of Article 5 (page 20, para 113 and 114): the Cameroon regime tried to argue that it subjected people to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and treatment as a measure to fight alleged terrorism--an alarming explanation to come from any government that expects to be taken seriously on the world stage. Apparently outraged by that excuse the Commission slapped another guilty verdict on the Cameroon regime.
GUILTY on the violation of article 6 (page 20, para 115-118 & page 21) in which the Cameroon government tries to justify clamp downs on peaceful protests simply by denying people demonstration permits and calling the demonstrations “illegal.” The rattled members of the Commission wrote "The Respondent State [Cameroon] did not deny the allegations; instead it tried to justify them [on the bases of some undemocratic medieval law—my addition]…” before slapping another guilty decision on Cameroon.
GUILTY on the violation of Article 7(1) (page 22, 23): the Regime tried to blame some of its officers, which the Commission of course did not accept but pointed out that the regime has not done anything to correct any of the supposed administrative bottlenecks. The Commission went on to debunk the feeble excuse the regime tried to give for the crimes before giving another guilty verdict, and then clarifying that Cameroon indeed violated Article 7(1)(b) (c) and (d) of the Charter.
NO SUBMISSION: Alleged violation of Article 9. (Page 24)
132. The Commission wrote: “The Complainants did not make any submissions concerning Article 9 [in other words the SCNC and SCAPO did not specifically provide information to back this allegation].The Commission has therefore not made any finding regarding Article 9.”
NO SUBMISSION: Alleged violation of Article 10
133. “The Complainants allege that the Respondent State violated Articles 10 of the African Charter. The parties did not make any submission on Article 10 of the Charter. [Here again the SCNC and SCAPO did not provide the court with material and the Cameroon regime happily ignored the request of article 10]
The Commission finds no violation of Article 10.”
GUILTY: On allegation of violation of Article 11 (page 24 para 134-), though the both parties did not submit information with specification to this article, “…The Commission deems that there is enough information on the record, based on the both parties to enable the Commission to make its determination.” That information of course shows the Cameroon regime guilty of violating Article 11, concludes the Commission (Page 25,--para 138).
NOT GUILTY [NO SUBSTANTIATION]: On the allegation of violation of Article 12 which has to do with the infringement on freedom of movement through things like unwarranted excessive road blocks and control of Identification Cards, the Commission found Cameroon not guilty because the SCNC and SCAPO did not substantiate on this point (page 25, para 139). If the Commission’s report was a soccer match, this would be that moment where the attacker dribbles the ball past the entire defence of the opposite team and the goal keeper only to kick the ball over the bar. That moment when everyone in the stadium and in front of the TV scream, jumps and all shout together in different languages “NOOO.”
NOT GUILTY [NO SUBSTANTIATION] On the allegation of violation of Article 13 (page 25, para 140--) having to do with representation in government, the court declared Cameroon not guilty as long as Southern Cameroonians are represented in government no matter the disproportionate number in comparison. (Page 26, para 144)The Commission writes “ …The Complainants did not furnish the Commission with information or cases that individuals in Southern Cameroon were denied representation or denied access to public services. The Commission finds that allegations concerning “tokenism” have not been substantiated and concludes that there is no violation of Article 13. On this one a thorough crafting of the employment issue in SONARA which led to protest and press courage would come in handy.
NOT GUILTY [DATA AND STATISTICS TRICK] On the Violation of article 17 (Page 26, para 145--). The Commission wrote “The Complainants [SCNC & SCAPO] allege that the Respondent State violated Article 17 of the Charter, because it is destroying education in the Southern Cameroons by underfunding and understaffing primary education. That it imposed inappropriate reform of secondary and technical education. It discriminates Southern Cameroonians in the admission into the Polytechnique in Yaoundé, and refused to grant authorisation for registration of the Bamenda University of Science and Technology, thereby violating article 17 on the right to education.” The Commission wrote (page 26, para 146) “The Respondent State [Cameroon] denied that it is destroying the education system in the Southern Cameroon. It provided detailed data and statistics on the measures it had taken to cater for the education sector in the Southern Cameroons. It stated that in certain cases it had provided more resources to Southern Cameroon than it had done for other regions. The Complainants [SCNC& SCAPO] contested the reliability of the data and statistics, but did not convince the Commission that the data should not be relied upon.”
WE NOW GO TO THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE DEALING WITH THE PEOPLES OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONS.
While stating that parts of the case are beyond its competence because the alleged “violations were a consequence of the events of 1961 and 1972”, the commission stated however that “…if the Complainants [SCNC & SCAPO] can establish that any violation committed before 18 December 1989 [when the charter came into existence], continued thereafter, then the Commission shall have competence to examine it.” (Page 28).
GUILTY on violation of article 19; Article 19 places an absolute ban on the domination of one people by another.
Page (29, para 162). “The Commission states that the relocation of business enterprises and location of economic projects to Francophone Cameroon, which generated negative effects on the economic life of Southern Cameroon constituted violation of Article 19 of the Charter.”
GUILTY on violation of Article 20. (Page 29, para 163--, page 33,para 177-- )
The SCNC states that the “alleged unlawful and forced annexation and colonial occupation” of Southern Cameroon by the Respondent State [Cameroon] constituted a violation of Article 20 of the Charter. They claim that Southern Cameroonians are entitled to exercise the rights to self determination under Article 20 of the Charter as a separate and distinct people from the people of “La Republic du Cameroon.””
After a lengthy analysis, intellectually very stimulating to read, the Commission arrived at the following conclusions:
- (Page 33,177--) “It is in the light of the above that the Commission shall examine the allegations against the Respondent State, concerning the violations of the collective rights cited hereinabove.
178. The Commission states that after thorough analysis of the arguments and literature, it finds that the people of Southern Cameroon can legitimately claim to be a “people.” Besides the individual rights due to Southern Cameroon, they have a distinct identity which attracts certain collective rights. The UNESCO group of Experts report referred to hereinabove, states that for a collective of individuals to constitute a “people” they need to manifest some, or all the identified attributes. The Commission agrees with the Respondent State that a “people” may manifest ethno- anthropological attributes. Ethno- anthropological attributes may be added to the characteristics of a “people.”
Such attributes are necessary only when determining indigenology of a “people,” but cannot be used as the only determinant factor to accord or deny the enjoyment or protection of peoples’ rights. Was it the intention of the State Parties to rely on ethno anthropological roots only to determine “peoples’ rights,” they would have said so in the African Charter? As it is, the African Charter guarantees equal protection to people on the continent, including other racial groups whose ethno anthropological roots are not African.”
GUILTY OF VIOLATING PEOPLES RIGHTS: “179. Based on that reasoning, the Commission finds that “the people of Southern Cameroon” qualify to be referred to as a “people” because they manifest numerous characteristics and affinities, which include a common history, linguistic tradition, territorial connection, and political outlook. More importantly they identify themselves as a people with a separate and distinct identity. Identity is an innate characteristic within a people. It is up to other external people to recognise such existence, but not to deny it.” It felt almost as if someone wanted to add FOOL!
NOT GUILTY ON STOPPING SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION: Again because of the political sensitivity of this decision the commission takes its time to explain what is going on within the commission.
(Page 36 para 190). “The Commission notes that the Republic of Cameroon is a party to the Constitutive Act (and was a state party to the OAU Charter). It is a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as well. The Commission is obliged to uphold the territorial integrity of the Respondent State [THAT IS NOT TO SAY SOUTHERN CAMEROONS IS PART OF THE RESPONDENT STATE]. As a consequence, the Commission cannot envisage, condone or encourage secession, as a form of self-determination for the Southern Cameroons. That will jeopardise the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cameroon.
191. The Commission states that secession is not the sole avenue [in other words it is one of several avenues—my addition] open to Southern Cameroonians to exercise the right to self determination. The African Charter cannot be invoked by a complainant to threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State party. The Commission has however accepted that autonomy within a sovereign state, in the context of self government, confederacy, or federation, while preserving territorial integrity of a State party, can be exercised under the Charter. In their submission, the Respondent State implicitly accepted that self determination may be exercisable by the Complainants on condition that they establish cases of massive violations of human rights, or denial of participation in public affairs.
A very interesting point about this paragraph 191 is that it says “secession is not the sole avenue open to Southern Cameroonians to exercise the right to self determination.” In other words, it is one of several methods but not the only one for the Southern Cameroons to exercise its self-determination. One could ask the questions how much violation is needed for violation to be massive? and on what bases does the commission decide that a particular form of expression of sovereignty is better for a given people or not? I remember very well when Charles De Gaulle decided that the best form of expression of self-determination for Guinea, Cameroon and others was for them to become part of an overseas French Community. I wonder how the Commission would have challenged that. I can see the French screaming racism when the Commission tells them that they would rather the Guineans make that choice in that case.
The amusing thing in this part of the decision is that the Commission takes a couple of pages to point out that the events of 1961 and 1972 fall out of its competency before handing down this decision which, while looking politically safe, does not put a moral stop to the political struggle. In other words, if you bring up the declassified documents that show that Britain deliberately misinformed and manipulated the former Southern Cameroons government in violation of the UN Charter and the Trust Agreements Britain signed, you can overturn this decision. We will have to pay attention though that cases like these are not just won or lost be the legal merit, we will need to do more on the side of outreach to mobilise public opinion at home and abroad to create the political pressure necessary to move the political inertia of the status quo. My analysis is that there are two torch points here. Cameroon is not a democracy; hence, it cannot engage in a fair, just and sincere negotiation; and in lots of ways Cameroon-ness has become defined by how opposed one is to the granting of equal rights to the peoples of the former Southern Cameroons. And the political capital necessary for Cameroon to become a democracy is the political Capital needed to free Cameroon from the control of France, with the consequence of a probably domino effect in the entire region. That political capital is far more than the one the Southern Cameroons needs to amass for its independence. For the Southern Cameroons to amass its necessary political capital, it will have to perform a global socio-psychological engineering task that can be started by creating very transparent and democratic organisational structures for its movement and then plugging into the global social justice movement.
NOT GUILTY (NO DATA SUBMISSION): Alleged violation of Article 21
204. The Complainants allege violation of Article 21. They did not bring any evidence to support their allegation. In the absence of any such evidence, the Commission finds no violation against the Respondent State.
NOT GUILTY (THE DATA TRICK AGAIN): Alleged violation of Article 22 (page 39, para 205). “The Complainants alleged cases of economic marginalisation, and lack of economic infrastructure. The lack of such resources, if proven would constitute violation of the right to development under Article 22.
206. The Commission is cognisant of the fact that the realisation of the right to development is a big challenge to the Respondent State [Cameroon], as it is for State Parties to the Charter, which are developing countries with scarce resources. The Respondent State gave explanations and statistical data showing its allocation of development resources in various socio-economic sectors. The Respondent State is under obligation to invest its resources in the best way possible to attain the progressive realization of the right to development, and other economic, social and cultural rights. This may not reach all parts of its territory to the satisfaction of all individuals and peoples, hence generating grievances. This alone cannot be a basis for the finding of a violation. The Commission does not find a violation of Article 22.”
NOT GUILTY (NO SUBSTANTIATION): Alleged violation of Article 23(1) (Page 39 para 207). The Complainants did not substantiate their allegations on the violation under Article 23(1) The Commission therefore finds that there was no violation of article 23(1) of the Charter.
NOT GUILTY (NO FACTS): Alleged violation of Article 24
(Page 39, para 208). No evidence was brought to support the allegation that article 24 has been violated. Consequently, the Commission finds no violation.
GUILTY: The Complainants [SCNC & SCAPO] alleged violation of Article 26 (39 para 209). They submitted that the judiciary in the Respondent State [Cameroon] is not independent. They allege that the Executive branch influences the judiciary through the appointments, promotions, or transfer policy. It is also alleged that the President of the Republic convenes and presides over the Higher Judicial Council.
212. The composition of the Higher Judicial Council by other members is not likely to provide the necessary “checks and balance” against the Chairperson, who happens to be the President of the Republic. The allegations by the Complainants in this regard are therefore substantiated. The Commission does not hesitate to find the Respondent State [Cameroon] in violation of Article 26.
214. For the above reasons, the African Commission:
− Finds that Articles 12, 13, 17(1), 20, 21, 22, 23(1) and 24 have not been violated.
− Finds that the Republic of Cameroon has violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 10, 11, 19 and 26 of the Charter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
215. The African Commission therefore recommends as follows;
1. That the Respondent State:
2.
(I) Abolishes all discriminatory practices against people of Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, including equal usage of the English language in business transactions;27(II) Stops the transfer of accused persons from the Anglophone provinces for trial in the Francophone provinces;
(III) Ensures that every person facing criminal charges be tried under the language he/she understands. In the alternative, the Respondent State must
EX.CL/529(XV)
Annex 4
Page 41
ensure that interpreters are employed in Courts to avoid jeopardising the rights of accused persons;
(IV) Locates national projects, equitably throughout the country, including Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, in accordance with economic viability as well as regional balance;(V) Pays compensation to companies in Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, which suffered as a result of discriminatory treatment by banks;
(VI) Enters into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in particular,
SCNC and SCAPO to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances which could threaten national unity; and
(VII) Reforms the Higher Judicial Council, by ensuring that it is composed of
personalities other than the President of the Republic, the Minister for Justice and other members of the Executive Branch.
2. To the Complainants, and SCNC and SCAPO in particular,
(i) to transform into political parties,
(ii) to abandon secessionism and engage in constructive dialogue with the Respondent State on the Constitutional issues and grievances.
3. The African Commission places its good offices at the disposal of the parties to mediate an amicable solution and to ensure the effective implementation of the above recommendations.
4. The African Commission requests the Parties to report on the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations within 180 days of the adoption of this decision by the AU Assembly.
For Cameroon to be in good standing with the Commission, it has to pay compensation to all the families of the victims; democratise its institutions; and desist from repeating these crimes it has already been found guilty of right here. When people will take all this in, the regime will be in real trouble. The other problem linked to this case is foreign aid. In Europe, slowly lots of people do not want to keep sponsoring the French pet project—its neo-colonial territories, especially since in the case of Cameroon it is mainly only exploited by France, and lots of French people know enough now to get some electoral consequences especially after Biya’s 100 million Euro holiday in France. In the US pro-Africa advocacy groups will pick this up pretty soon, especially with the economic crisis. As for the transatlantic relationship, the present US administration is not in the slightest mode ready to say one thing in front of the public and another behind close doors on Africa. America will support only countries which are on the democratisation path, and this will further put more pressure on dictators in the neighbourhood.
You can now see, I hope, why I think the Verdict of Banjul was a nail in the coffin of the regime. If it tries to hold on, an emboldened public might make the end nasty, or in the worst case be in Banjul against it, which gives more ammo to stop foreign aid, which will leave Biya with unpaid workers, police and soldiers—not good. If he democratises, Cameroonians are only too eager to vote him out.
===
The full text of the Commission's decision is available here BANJUL VERDICT.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
This analysis goes a long way to show that frogs will remain filthy no matter how hard one tries to clean them up.
How on earth could La Republique du cameroon try to reproduce and contaminate their ugly culture of corrupt practices in an instution(ACHPR)of this nature?
“41. At its 36th Ordinary Session held in Dakar, Senegal from 24 November-7 December 2004, the African Commission decided to defer its consideration on the merits to the next session. It also rejected an application to stay the proceedings by third parties purporting to represent the applicants [SCNC & SCAPO] claiming to have entered into negotiation with the Respondent State [Cameroon].”
"In plain language you [Cameroon] tried to trick us by bringing some dupes here to lie that they were representing the SCNC—imagine a state worth the name recruiting con men to go and lie on its behalf to an international body!"
It is appalling and debilating that La Republique du Cameroon after trying but in vain to kill the activities of SCNC and SCAPO back in the country was determined once more to disrupt the case now in the office of the ACHPR proper,as they produced a delegation purporting to be members of the SCNC and SCAPO and claiming to have entered into negotiations with the said la republique du Cameroon. CRIMINALS,what a shame for this state organised mafia or 419s.I am convinced that the filthy frog Dipoko was also in that state sponsored dubious delegation.
As I always say,the truth though it has no tonque will out.what is done in the night is revealed in the day,no matter how hard we try to conseal it.
Do you believe in predestination? They say in latin che sera,sera,and in English what will be,will be and in french que sera,sera.Southern Cameroon was not meant to be together with la republique du cameroon,reason why God decided to put them asunder.Unification and Reuinification was the work of men trying to put together what God had put asunder for personal or self aggrandizement.So,we are slowly but surely seeing how in vain they laboured.Once more,the will of the people is beginning to prevail slowly but certainly.It is only a matter of time!!! Foreward the Light Brigade.
Posted by: The herald | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 09:36 AM
These fellows are so full of bad faith. First thing they do when the verdict lands is launch their team of Corn Chews, sorry Kontcheus to lie and spin. Just as if we cannot read and interpret the verdict.
We are supposed to negotiate with these crooks? This thing had no hope in 1960 and even less today. Southern Cameroonians must get together and give this their all.
Posted by: Va Boy | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 09:56 AM
I will like to add my own one cent to the great analysis above. On the section on:
NOT GUILTY ON STOPPING SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION: ....
(Page 36 para 190)
....As a consequence, the Commission cannot envisage, condone or encourage secession, as a form of self-determination for the Southern Cameroons. That will jeopardise the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cameroon.
IN OUR REPLY TO THE COMMISSION WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT:
1-WE DO NOT SUPPORT SECESSION AS AN ELEMENT OF THE INTERNAL POLITICS OF A COUNTRY.
BUT POINT OUT THAT BY THE AFRICAN CHARTER EACH AFRICAN COUNTRY IS RECOGNIZED WITHIN THE ITS BOUNDARIES AS AT INDEPENDENT. IN THIS CASE THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS WAS NOT A PART OF CAMEROON.
2-WE NEED AN ELABORATE EXPLANATION MAKING THE CASE THAT OURS IS A CASE OF RESTORATION AND NOT SECESSION.
Posted by: Egbembah | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 12:54 PM
On the NOT GUILTY [DATA AND STATISTICS TRICK] On the Violation of article 17 (Page 26, para 145--)HAVING TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION.
In our reply to the court, we need to bring up the issue about scholarships to West-point, Military Academy in the US. The Cameroon government decided to reject this scholarship when the Military College complained that they did not have the time to teach Cameroon's nominees English first before military training. This happened because the regime decided for a while to mainly nominate Francophones for the scholarship. They preferred to reject the scholarship offer than nominate Southern Cameroonians.
The next point is to look at the Cameroon government's scholarship offers. It is almost exclusively a Francophone thing these days.
Posted by: Egbembah | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 01:08 PM
On the question of the VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 22 ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, our response to the court should included companies like Niba Automobile and Nanga Companies which were excessively taxed to bankruptcy. We will be able in this to make comparison to similar companies in Cameroon which were not taxed in the same way.
Posted by: Egbembah | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 01:17 PM
Keeping aside some of the minutiae along the way, who has secceded from what was envisaged in the illegal, ill-advised and ill-fated 1961 federation?
What was the name of French Cameroun (la Republique Francaise du Cameroun) on January 1, 1960 when they supposedly became independent and her international borders established as immutable by international law? LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN.
What was the name of French Cameroun (la Republique Francaise du Cameroun) after the so-called Federation? [FEDERATED STATE OF] EAST CAMEROON.
I guess after 20 May 1972, French Cameroun (la Republique Francaise du Cameroun) was PART of UNITED REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON.
Then the genius of France and their puppet and international thief, Paul Biya, arrogantly believing that they had successfully acculturated the anglofous to their primitive existence in the culture of tyranny, corruption, unaccountability, poverty, death and service to Paris above all, decided to become LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN and take us with them to be part of the human scarifice to France forever!
SO WHO IS GUITY OF SECCESSION?
AND WE ARE HAPPY THEY DID SECCEDE, BECAUSE IT BEGAN OUR JOURNEY TO OUR ULTIMATE REAL CHANCE FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AND FREEDOM IN OUR HOMELAND.
But look for la Republique Francaise du Cameroun , with her back to the wall, even with the militarization and rule of terror since 1961 in our homeland, to change its name again to 'accomodate' the Southern Cameroons nation in their recurrent fit bad faith and shamelessness.
Posted by: TAGRO | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 01:34 PM
in response to the the COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SCNC & SCAPO TO ABANDON SECESSIONISM AND ENGAGE IN CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOG THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE.
1- WE ARE NOT NATION FETISH BUT THE RESTORATION OF OUR INDEPENDENCE IS THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO GUARANTEE OUR PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO A LIFE OF PEACE, SECURITY AND DIGNITY.
The split between our people and the people of Cameroon is wide and deep. Patriotism in Cameroon has been redefined to mean an opposition to our objection to second class citizens status.
No doubt the renown power brokers in Cameroon like Ena Basil called us the enemy in the house for asking for our basic rights.
French politicians and former Ministers in explaining why Fru Ndi could not be allowed to be president of Cameroon despite wining the election simply said an anglophone cannot be allowed to rule a French country.
Not long ago a Cameroon parliamentarian called a southern Cameroonian parliamentarian in parliament during a parliamentary debate a Biafran as a way to beef up his Cameroon-ness. The list goes on.
Posted by: Egbembah | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 01:41 PM
Southern Cameroonians are a distinct people--read the verdict, and it is up to them to determine their destiny. In terms of how a modern state should function, I have more in common with my comrades in Kumbo and Nkambe than with my ethnic cousins in Douala. There is absolutely no meeting of the minds with them about the things that matter.
Posted by: Va Boy | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 02:48 PM
Alain Dipoko, Yabassi Boy :-)? you are insulting Yabassi people by not reading a bit of history before you go screaming factual inaccuracies in public with Yabassi Boy in front of your name.
Since I am too busy to give you a "Southern Cameroons history for dummies" lecture, I will just help on one fact that will definitely piss off Yabassi people about you association yourself with them.
How about you starting your history class in the link below:
If you do, you will learn the following:
1-That the Ambas Bay Colony (Southern Cameroons) existed when there was no Cameroon.
-1858 -1887 British colony at Ambas Bay (Victoria).
2- That the German colony of Kamerun which started from 1884 (26 years after Ambas Bay Colony)did not include Southern Cameroon. And that Kamerun included parts of present day Chad and Central African Republic.
3-It was in 1887 following the Berlin Conference of 1884 that let to colonisation of Africa that Ambas Bay Colony was ceded to Germany by Britain and ended up in that your Cameroon.
Now you may want to take note that the Berlin Conference has not only been declared illegal by the Atlantic charter/UN, but is under consideration by international jurists as a crime against humanity.
Read real history. Don't go in public and scream the skinny ass propaganda the French designed for Cameroon children as history. OK?
Good Boy.
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Cameroon.html
Posted by: Egbembah | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 03:02 PM
I want to thank Egbembah for that link. It is full of useful facts. It is true that children have been subjected to wrong history. Someone needs to write the correct history at Standard 6 level for the benefit of everybody. Propaganda is not a substitute for history. Is Dipoko a propagandist for the Cameroon government? He uses their tactics. He pours a lot of facts but fudges the crucial elements with the aim of deception and intimidation.
Posted by: Facter | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 05:42 PM
Very sad Dipoko how in 3 short bullet points you can be disprove so much I feel ashame for you, please read and know your history before you pen down you hatred jargon of history....I am very sad for you are becoming more of a lunatic everytime I read your postings.
Posted by: fabelos | Monday, 12 October 2009 at 06:29 PM
I salute you Mr Egbembah for the clarification.
AS for Alain,we need not bother,he is a professional liar.He however,knows that the tide that is rising will not fall without being appeased and so,he has chosen to be like a spartan that died but never surrendered.
In the past the Anglophone problem was equally treated as a mere ilusion,today,it has become a real thorn in the government flesh.The anglofous asked for negotiation which was rejected yesterday but today it is the government that is asking for negotiations with anglofous.Who then,is living in the fairy land?
Posted by: The herald | Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 04:48 AM
Dipoko
those cunning-like-a-fox tactics just cannot hold.
dont beat by the bush
the summary around this is whether the rights and identity of a people has been tampared with.
Organised and intellectually honest people (ofcourse you re not one of them) follow debates and then try to shake the crediblily of the main issue based on sound facts and arguements, not by trying to deviate the arguement with such historical perculiar -to-frogs fallacies.
Posted by: sasha | Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 01:49 PM
WATER AND PARAFIN CAN NEVER MIX EVEN IF BOILED AT 10.000°C
WATER WOULD ALWAYS FLOAT. CAUSE WATER IS PURE AND PARAFIN POLLUTED.
DO YOU KNOW OF THIS BIRD THAT HATES FAECIS YET FEEDS ONLY ON MAGOTS. IN GHANA ITS CALLED CHICHIDODO.
LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO HATES ANGLOPHONES CAUSE THEY ARE DULL AND EMPTY HEADED, YET THE SAME DIRTY BLOOD FLOWS IN THE VEINS OF HIS KIDS.
SHAMEFUL ISN'T IT?
Posted by: fanso | Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 02:03 PM
There is one thing that Dipoko has said that a lot of us have yet to grasp and I will repeat it here.
Alain said:
Be realistic. All the countries with veto powers at the UN like the US, China, France have very lucrative economic ties with us, to convince them divide a united country. Your noise therefore remains just ordinary noise.
My fellow Cameroonians we need to come to grips with this fact and keep it in our thoughts as we decide what we are going to do to have one or two seperate Cameroon(s) with liberty, equality, and justice for all.
The most the UN can do is to give a ruling similar to what the ACHPR gave and encourage both sides to negotiate. The only way we will end up with two seperate Cameroons is through war. There was gross genocide in Rwanda and we all didn't see the UN or even France for that matter send anyone to stop that madness. Part of the reason the UN was created was so that something like genocide would not happen again. The UN didn't even step in more recently to stop the genocide in Darfur so what would make anyone think they are going to stick their nose in our business at this point to do something on the magnitude of dividing a country peacefully.
We need a leader who rules from the center of political/ideological thought. We need someone that is out for the good of the whole nation. All of Cameroon needs to be developed and all Cameroonians are disenfranchised by this current regime.
It drives us all mad when they cut electricity when we are doing something important or watching les Lions Indomitable play. Anglofous and Francofous students have to walk in muddy streets to attend classes in over-crowded amphi theatres. There is not one place in Camer that does not have to deal with water shortage during dry season. The roads are bad everywhere. Everyone is suffering from low wages and there are even people who go to work and don't get paid. Our military is a week military. For a country of around 18 million we only have around 20 to 30 thousand soldiers. And the only time those soldiers are used is to kill innocent civilians so that one man can stay in power and enjoy the nations wealth alone. And no one can tell me there is no money in Camer. When you hear of the money that the Ministers or even Pau Pau himself is spending or stealing you know that there is a lot of money in Camer. All Camerooonians feel that they have to be part of Equip National to progress in Camer.
Cameroonians are ambitious hard working people. Our ambitions are being stifled by a bunch of people with no foresight. They don't love Camer and they don't love us. Unpatriotic fool them all.
Who is that person who will appeal to all these affected people in Camer?
Who will unite everyone in Cameroon to get rid of this current regime and then call a constitutional conference to redistribute the power and create independence amongst the judicial, executive, and legislative branches?
Only Cameroonians can change Cameroon. It is good that we make our case internationaly known so that when things start happening no one says we didn't try to go about it peacefully. But what is there is that no International Commitee will divide Camer while there is some semblance of relative peace. No one pays serious attention to you until you start kicking and screaming i.e. until there is serious civil unrest and maybe even war. A closed mouth does not get fed. Whatever that has to be done to fix Cameroon will be done by Cameroonians.
FREE CAMEROON!
Posted by: The Ngwa Man | Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 10:34 PM
The Ngwa Man, you've not made your stance clear on this issue of secession. I really appreciate your sometime hard to swallow objectivity in addressing the general malaise facing Cameroonians as a whole. However, you have to know that if the case of the SCNC got to this level, it is because several appeals to curtail the discrimination faced by Southern Cameroonians failed at various.
I couldn't have been more upset with you when you sided with Konde when he claimed that it was thanks to some military rogues from La Republique that Limbe was freed from the hands of some reckless Nigerians. By implication, you've been there from the very beginning. We've not only faced the bile of repressive governments, we've met people whose worldview sharply goes against the averagely expected ethical norms.
With or without a bad government, there is absolute lack of fraternity. Within top government officials, there is a high degree of mutual suspicion. What the colonial administrators did to the colonised people by making them to feel less human is exactly what the french regime will do when they finally gain the economic monopoly that their policies are fastening.
If you make 10 men very poor, at least 8 of them would call you SIR in order to have food on their tables.
Posted by: Bob Bristol | Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 06:04 AM
Ngwa Man, as Bob Bristol expounds, we have been there and done that. What Dipoko is saying is what people like Bernard Fonlon and other Southern Cameroonians thought and said in the 1960s and 1970s. The Cameroun people and government that you love so much were busy working to tear down our institutions, dignity and power. We do not trust them to run our affairs, to be in charge of our lives. I do not think you know them that well. You are misguided in this case. The best thing for both countries is to be apart.
Also, we do not give a damn about what the United States or China or anyone else wants. If the US gave a hoot about the very powerful King George's opinion, it would still be a colony in the British Empire. We shall still give them access to oil. Are we going to drink it or what? By your reasoning there would still be slave trade because very powerful interests supported it. If you do not value your freedom, you will be considering stuff like x, y or z do not want me to be free so I will remain unfree.
Posted by: Va Boy | Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:33 AM
Va Boy,you have left loose a bullet that will surely not miss its mark!!!!
Posted by: The herald | Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:40 PM
My stance on the issue of secession is that I believe in liberty, equality and justice for all Cameroonians whether it is in two seperate independent Cameroons or one Cameroon.
Mr. Bristol, site where in any of my postings that I have sided with Konde on his claims that some military rogues from La Republique freed Limbe from some reckless Nigerians. Where did I agree with Konde on that? I do not and never will agree with impractical, false, selacious or inflammatory claims made by Konde/Dipoko/Son of the Soil or anyone else who makes such statements.
Va Boy, you are right about one thing:
I LOVE THE CAMEROONIAN PEOPLE.
I love the disenfranchised masses from both sides of the Mungo who are poor and vulnerable. I love all my fellow Cameroonian brothers and sisters who are suffering indignation from this wicked and crooked regime/government led by the most unpatriotic Uncle Tom aka S.E. Paul Biya. Mr Va Boy you will not find any love for this government in my heart or in my writings.
Those who misunderstood my posting above on Tues., 13 Oct. 2009 at 10:34pm should read it again... but slowly this time. No where in that write up will you find support for this current government or support for the inflammatory/negative views espoused by Konde.
What I agreed with Konde on was what role the UN would (or should I say wouldnt) play in our affairs. On this point I believe that Va Boy agrees with me because he makes the statement, "we do not give a damn about what the United States or China or anyone else wants." "We shall still give them access to oil." "Are we going to drink it or what?" That is the mind state we should have i.e. do what is right for Cameroonians.
We may be taking our case to the UN but they are not going to divide a member nation. They will not aid in secession. By my reasoning we do our thing and don't expect assistance from outsiders. We have to be honest with our selves. Based on the historical facts, Anglophone Cameroon has a legitimate right to self determination. Even a blind man can see that. But at this time in our history self determiniation will not be acheived through dialogue or via a referendum organized by the UN without out immense civil unrest/war taking place first.
One thing I am pretty confident of is that Cameroon would be a better place if moderate, progressive, fair minded citizens from both sides of the Mungo worked together and appealed to each others sensibilities. I feel that we are in the same situation that African Americans and South Africans were in not too long ago. If we employ the same tactics that they used and work with those Francophone Cameroonians that are practical, we can change the way we see each other as a nation.
Liberty, equality, and justice for all Cameroonians. It won't be for just Bakweri or Beti people but also for Hausa's and Bafut people, in short for all Cameroonians.
We the disenfranchised citizens of Camer do not have the states military or finances at our disposal but we do have our intelligence and our numbers. With sound strategy incorporating all those affected by this regime and selfless practical decisions we shall over come.
FREE CAMEROON!
Posted by: The Ngwa Man | Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 05:09 PM
egbembah.THESE MY SCNC LEADERS, THEY SOME TIMES ACT LIKE, DRUNKS. THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE
FIRST COMPLAIN HEADLIND TO THE COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AND NOT SOME,MISCELLANEOUS, CRUMPS OF BREAD ISSUES. LIKE THAT ANYANGWE HIMSELF MUST SEEK MY ADVISE, THA LAST TIME I TRIED GETTING TO HIM, THROUGH HIS SECRETARY, THEY WERE BUSY IN THEIR USAUL MEETINGS, OURS IS A STRUGGLE FOR RESTORATION OF OUR STATEHOOD
AND NOT SECESSION WHICH SCNC/SCAPO KEEP REPEATING THE LA REPUBLIQUE LANGUAGE, DOUALA, YAOUNDA GAROU CAN SECEDED BUT NOT SOUTHERN CAMEROONS SINCE IT WAS NOT PART OF CAMEROUN AT INDEPENDENCE IN 1960 FROM FRANCE.
Posted by: DANGO TUMMA | Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 10:54 PM
egbembah, i will love you to google mr kevin mwanga gumne name and contact him via email, to high light this very important part of our struggle, soo that in their respong to that same court, they must tell say ours is Independence and not secession, that word is the one used by la republique and many of us have beeing caught to this erroneously.
Posted by: DANGO TUMMA | Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 11:25 PM
POLICE STORM SCNC OFFICE, ARREST FOUR.
Full Story:
http://www.thepostwebedition.com/Content.aspx?ModuleID=1&ItemID=2250
Posted by: The herald | Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:00 AM