Re: International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Decolonization of Southern Cameroons: Crystallization of Dispute and Applicable Law

Garrison Duty:
Dear Dr Tumanang, You may wish to get in contact with either the
National Chairman of the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organisation,
SCAPO or with th Executive Vice National Chairman for urgent matters
needing your input.
Kindest regards
Chair-SCAPO-WAM.
PS.
Contact the Executive National Vice- Chairman of SCAPO, Mr. Augusttine
F. Ndangam, Tel 237 7749 2352 or E-mail at
southerncameroons.scapo@gmail.com Southern Cameroonians abroad who
wish for more information about the case should Contact the National
Chair of SCAPO, Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gumne Tel +44 191 442 1068 or E-mail
at southerncameroons.scapo@gmail.com

SCAPO PRESS RELEASE

SCAPO/PR.001/2013



THE BAMENDA HIGH COURT TO RULE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UNION OF LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN AND THE
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS.



The Southern Cameroons Peoples' Organization (SCAPO) informs the
people of the Southern Cameroons, human rights organisations and the
international community at large that it has directed the filing of
suit (HCB/04/2013) in which the Bamenda High Court is to determine and
rule on whether there is any legal justification for the union of La
Republique du Cameroun which had her independence on 1 January 1961
and the Southern Cameroons. The case is listed for hearing on Tuesday,
19 March 2013. The matter relates to La Republique du Cameroun's
illegal occupation of the Southern Cameroons since 1961, and her
consistent and well-attested yearly violence and other human rights
violations committed against citizens of the Southern Cameroons.
It is well to recall that the United Nations, in its General Assembly
Resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961, endorsed the decision of the
people of the Southern Cameroons taken on 11 February 1961 to achieve
independence. In that same Resolution the UN also appointed 1 October
of that year as the date of termination of UN trusteeship over the
Southern Cameroons and of achievement of independence by the British
Southern Cameroons. Beginning from 1st October 1961, citizens of the
Southern Cameroons commemorated and celebrated that day in exercise of
the right of everyone to freedom of peaceful assembly. But in the past
three decades La Republique du Cameroun which is in forcible
occupation of the Southern Cameroons, has used various violent means
in an attempt to suppress the remembrance of that critical date in the
history of the Southern Cameroons.
The Southern Cameroons is a former United Nations Trust Territory.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961
set 1 October 1961 as the date of termination of trusteeship status,
and of achievement of independence by the Southern Cameroons upon
finalization of arrangements based on the agreed and published
policies of the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun for a
federal political association of the two countries. That finalization
never took place. Instead, the then President of La Republique du
Cameroun Mr Ahmadou Ahidjo organised and presided over an inconclusive
bilateral talks with Southern Cameroons in Foumban which set aside the
directives of the United Nations' to finalise arrangements preparatory
to Union of the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun by
the dead-line of 1st October 1961. Following the inconclusive Foumban
Meeting and in a dramatic turn of events, on 1 September 1961 La
Republique du Cameroun passed an annexation law in its National
Assembly asserting claim to the Southern Cameroons as part of its
territory returned to it by the UN and Britain. La Republique du
Cameroun then proceeded to occupy the Southern Cameroons, suppressing
the statehood and self- government status the Southern Cameroons
enjoyed since 1954
Each year, over the past three decades, whenever the people of the
Southern Cameroons have sought to assert their dignity and other human
rights as a people, Republic of Cameroon routinely visits them with
all sorts of violence. In particular, before, on and immediately after
1st October of each year La Republique du Cameroun's military,
gendarmes and paramilitary police carry out mass arbitrary arrests in
the Southern Cameroons, detain and torture the arrestees and put them
through the motion of a pretended trial that lasts months and even
years.
Today and since 1972, the Southern Cameroons does not enjoy even a
modicum of self-rule. The annexation of the Southern Cameroons
signifies that La Republique du Cameroun took over from Britain as the
successor colonial authority and that the Southern Cameroons remains a
colonial territory. This explains Republic of Cameroon's visceral
obsession with violently suppressing the commemoration of 1 October of
each year.


The successor colonialist has since adopted policies and taken
measures designed to
achieve four main goals: the complete extinguishment of the identity
of the people of the
Southern Cameroons and their territory; the detrimental change of the
character of the
Southern Cameroons and the way of life of its people; cultural and
political destruction;
and spoliation of the natural resources of the Southern Cameroons. The
people of the
Southern Cameroons find themselves held captive and in a situation
indistinguishable
from collective servitude. The annexation and colonial occupation of
the Southern
Cameroons constitutes a grave attack on the humanity, the human
dignity, the worth, the
identity, the existence and the survival of the people of the Southern
Cameroons.

The present case before the Bamenda High Court is in a sense also
about this unacceptable colonial status, repeatedly rejected by the
people of the Southern Cameroons in words and deed. The occupation of
the Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun is an attempt to
steal territory in so far as there is no legal basis of La Republique
du Cameroun's rule in Southern Cameroons. The attempted theft was
initiated under the cover of cold war darkness. La Republique du
Cameroun schemed to cash in on an incomplete and messy UN/UK
decolonization process in the British Southern Cameroons.
Similar attempts by Morocco and Indonesia to steal territory have
failed. La Republique du Cameroun a former UN trust territory under
French administration, emerged from colonial status into sovereign
statehood on 1 January 1960 and succeeded to title over French
Cameroon by virtue of the principle of self-determination.
There is no known principle of law or morality on which Republic of
Cameroon can possibly base its bigotry that the Southern Cameroons,
which was also a UN trust territory, is inhabited by people of a
lesser order and therefore not similarly entitled to emerge from
colonial status into sovereign statehood by virtue of the self-same
principle of self-determination.

The SCAPO case: Augustine Feh Ndangam Vs The People of Cameroon
(Suit No. HBC/o4/2013) thus has a direct bearing on the right of the
people of Southern Cameroons to self-determination especially as the
court is called upon to rule whether there is any legal justification
of La Republique du Cameroun's occupation of the Southern Cameroons
since 1961.


SCAPO shall keep the people of the Southern Cameroons updated on
developments in the case. Lawyers who are interested in the case or
wish to have more information should

contact any of the following Law-Firms :


NJOBI LAW FIRM Tel 237 7783 1326
ABALU AND BOBGA LAW FIRM, Tel 237. 7777 0156
MBUFONZAK KAW FIRM Tel 237 7775 655559
AKUM , TANYI & CO LAW FIRM Tel 237 7776 1077
BRILIANTINE MARIAN CHAMBERS Tel 237 3307 2914



Pressmen who wish for more information about the case should contact
the Executive National Vice- Chairman of SCAPO, Mr. Augusttine F.
Ndangam, Tel 237 7749 2352 or E-mail at
southerncameroons.scapo@gmail.com Southern Cameroonians abroad who
wish for more information about the case should Contact the National
Chair of SCAPO, Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gumne Tel +44 191 442 1068 or E-mail
at southerncameroons.scapo@gmail.com







--------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Augusttine F. Ndangam Kevin N Gumne





Distribution



President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon, Yaoundé
The Secretary General of the United Nations, UN H/Q, New York
The President of the United Nations Security Council, New York
The President of the United Nations Human Rights Committee
The Chairman of the African Union,
The Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Addis Ababa
The Chairman of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, Addis Ababa
The Chairperson of The African Commission on Human and People's
Rights, Banjul The Gambia
The Ambassador of the United States of America in Yaoundé
The Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in Yaoundé
The Ambassador of the of the Russian Federation in Yaoundé
The Ambassador of the of Liberia in Yaoundé
The Nigerian High Commissioner in Yaoundé
The South African High Commissioner in Yaoundé
The Canadian High Commissioner in Yaoundé
The British High Commissioner in Yaoundé
The French Ambassador in Yaoundé
Traditional Rulers, the Southern Cameroons
Leaders of Southern Cameroons-based Political parties
MPs of Southern Cameroons citizenship sitting in the Assembly of Cameroon
Mayors of Southern Cameroons Municipalities
Human Rights Organizations

The Press

On 5/2/13, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Decolonization of Southern
> Cameroons: Crystallization of Dispute and Applicable Law Tumasang Martin
> Esq. While considering the
> possibility of the Southern Cameroons case being referred to the ICJ by a
> neighbouring state say Nigeria, it is prudent to consider what the dispute
> is,
> when does it crystallize and what the applicable law in the ICJ will be,
> should
> such a referral take place.
>
> Crystallization
> of Dispute
>
> In cases
> in fora like the ICJ, there is always the issue of whether the court has
> jurisdiction or not. Notwithstanding this important issue, it is not the end
> of
> the story. There is always the secondary issue of whether if the court has
> jurisdiction, it should exercise that jurisdiction. This issue is usually
> ignored by non-discerning commentators but it is as important as the issue
> of
> jurisdiction itself.
>
> The
> question that arises is whether in case a neighbouring state such as
> Nigeria
> takes our case to the ICJ and proves that it has a locus standi to bring the
> case
> and hence the court has jurisdiction on the case, is the court compelled to
> exercise such as jurisdiction?
>
> My considered
> opinion is NO. Nigeria can take the case to the ICJ, the ICJ might have
> jurisdiction but still refuse to exercise that jurisdiction. My readership
> might at this stage be alarmed by the strange but considered opinion I have
> reached
> on this issue. In order to explain my reasoning above, I would respectfully
> draw your attention to the Northern Cameroons case in the ICJ where the
> ICJ stated that
> "even if the Court, when seized, finds that it has jurisdiction,
> the Court is not compelled in every case to exercise that jurisdiction.
> There are inherent limitations on the exercise of the judicial function
> which
> the Court, as a court of justice, can never ignore. There may thus be an
> incompatibility between the desires of an applicant, or, indeed, of both
> parties to a case, on the one hand, and on the other hand the duty of the
> Court
> to maintain its judicial character. The Court itself, and not the parties,
> must
> be the guardian of the Court's judicial integrity." (Northern Cameroons
> (Cameroon v.
> United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1963,
> p. 29.)
>
> The above
> clearly shows that even if the court has jurisdiction, and even if both
> parties
> what the court to decide on the case, the court can still decline to do
> that. It
> does not matter if the case came to the ICJ by a "Special Agreement" by
> both
> parties or by unilateral application by one party. The limits of what the
> ICJ
> can do or not do, and what it should do or not do, is not governed by
> jurisdiction only but by statute also and the limitations placed on it by
> statute are not at the disposal of the parties, even by agreement between
> them,
> and are mandatory for the parties just as for the Court itself.
>
> In the
> case of FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA
> FASO/NIGER) 16 APRIL 2013
> (very recent case) at ICJ, the court stated that:
>
> "In contentious cases, the function of the
> Court, as defined in Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute, is to "decide
> in
> accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it".
> Consequently,
> the requests that parties submit to the Court, must not only be linked to a
> valid basis of jurisdiction, but must also always relate to the function of
> deciding disputes".
>
> I am
> fortified in my opinion held above by the cases of Nuclear Tests (Australia
> v.
> France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 270-271, para. 55; Nuclear
> Tests (New Zealand v. France, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 476,
> para. 58.) in the ICJ where the court stated that:
> "The Court, as a court of law, is called upon
> to resolve existing disputes between States. Thus the existence of a dispute
> is
> the primary condition for the Court to
> exercise its judicial function." The court also stated in this case that:
> "It is for the Court to determine
> objectively whether there is a dispute, without being bound in that respect
> by
> the assertions of the parties" (ibid., paras. 55 and 58).
>
> The
> question a discerning mind might ask at this stage is how does the above
> considered opinion anchor with the Southern Cameroons issue?. To deal with
> this, let's consider simpliciter that Nigeria takes Southern Cameroons case
> to
> the ICJ in fulfillment of one of its obligation in the Abuja Tomlin
> judgment. The
> question will be what is the dispute that Nigeria has with La Republique du
> Cameroun?. Southern Cameroons for sure has a justiciable dispute with La
> Republique du Cameroun but does Nigeria have such a dispute?. My considered
> opinion again is NO. If the answer is no, then the ICJ cannot exercise
> its judicial functions and the case collapses at this point.
>
> If my
> above considered opinion is correct, how do we cure the problem and
> crystallize
> a dispute between say Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun so that the ICJ
> can
> be able to seize on the matter considering the limitation of its role as
> defined by the applicable statutes?.
>
> In order
> to resolve the above problem, I hereby ask the readership's indulgence to
> take
> an analogy from the Construction industry. In this industry, payment of
> Contractors and Subcontractors is always a problem with numerous disputes
> until
> in the UK, the Housing Act was passed which allows unpaid contractors to
> refer
> their cases to adjudication and the adjudicator his obliged to give a
> determination within 28 days unless extended.
>
> For the
> adjudicator to have jurisdiction, a despite must have crystallized and
> concerning
> payment of money, a dispute only crystallizes if payment has been requested
> and there is a refusal to pay expressly or by conduct.
>
> Using
> this analogy on the Southern Cameroons case, a dispute on Southern
> Cameroons
> between Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun will crystallize if Nigeria
> writes
> to La Republique du Cameroun and ask it to withdraw to its borders as
> inherited
> from colonization, to withdraw its proconsul governors from the territory,
> and
> to allow the people of Southern Cameroons to exercise their sovereignty
> since
> such sovereignty is not with La Republique du Cameroun as sovereignty was
> never
> transferred to it, nor is there a union treaty between the two Cameroons.
> Nigeria can give La Republique du Cameroun say 21 days to comply, failure
> which
> a dispute crystallizes and Nigeria can refer the dispute to the ICJ. Please
> note that the critical date is the date of reference to determine if a
> dispute
> has crystallized between the parties. In hindsight, the writing of such a
> letter to La Republique du Cameroun should have been included in the Abuja
> Tomlin Judgment to start the ball rolling.
>
> Applicable Law
>
> If
> Nigeria was to succeed and refer the case to the ICJ, the question still
> remains as to what is the applicable law to apply in the case?. Does the
> African Union constitute Act in regards to boundaries inherited from
> colonialism have any moment in front of the ICJ?. Would the Cairo
> Declaration
> of 1964 in relation to this same issue be considered by the ICJ as good
> international
> law to be followed?. Would the principle of intangibility of colonial
> borders
> apply?. Can La Republique du Cameroun add territory that is outside those
> borders inherited at independence without a union treaty and without
> satisfying
> Article 102 of the charter?.
>
> In order
> to address these questions, it might be germane to look at the recent
> jurisprudence of the ICJ on these matters and see what inspiration we can
> draw
> from them. Before that, it might be good practice to state what the Cairo
> 1964
> declaration said:
>
> The text of resolution AGH/Res. 16 (I)
> adopted in Cairo in 1964 at the first session of the Conference of African
> Heads of State and Government, whereby the Conference declared that all
> member
> States of the Organization of African Unity "solemnly . . . pledge
> themselves
> to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national
> independence".
> Subsequently, Article 4 (b) of
> the Constitutive Act of the African Union laid down the principle of
> "respect
> of borders existing on achievement of independence".
>
> Going
> back to the jurisprudence of the ICJ, the case of Frontier Dispute (Burkina
> Faso/Republic of Mali), the Chamber of the Court which dealt with
> the case concluded that it could "not
> disregard the principle of uti possidetis juris, the application of which
> gives rise to this
> respect for intangibility of frontiers" (Frontier Dispute (Burkina
> Faso/Republic of Mali Judgment,
> I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 565, para. 20).
>
> From the above, La
> Republique du Cameroun is doomed with its borders at the Mungo and after
> Santa
> and there is nothing they can do. The principle of intangibility of
> colonial
> borders is good international law as applied by the ICJ. Reliance has to be
> placed on existing titles at the time of independence and interpretation has
> to
> even be as interpreted and applied by the colonial powers. I am fortified
> in
> this view because of the jurisprudence of the ICJ, where in the case of the
> Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), the Chamber of the Court emphasized that
> "the uti possidetis juris principle
> requires not only that reliance be placed on existing legal titles, but
> also
> that account be taken of the manner in which those titles were interpreted
> and
> applied by the competent public authorities of the colonial Power" (The
> Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)
> Judgment,I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 148, para. 140)
>
> Conclusion
>
> In order for a neighbouring state to refer
> our case to the ICJ, a dispute between it and La Republique du Cameroun must
> be
> crystallized and in the ICJ, the principle of intangibility of colonial
> boundaries will be paramount hence consigning La Republique du Cameroun
> after
> the Mungo and after Santa. Force has no part to play, wishes of its people
> and
> fifth columnists in Southern Cameroons has no part to play.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.