Re: Southern Cameroons: Another Winnable Case Against La Republique du Cameroun

MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITIZENS OF FORMER BRITISH SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
RESIDENT IN ITALY TO HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS ON THE OCCASION OF THE
VISIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN, MR PAUL BIYA ON
18 OCTOBER 2013

TO
HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
THE ECCLESIASTIC BISHOP OF ROME.

YOUR HOLINESS,
We the people of the former British southern Cameroons after serious
contemplations and consultations, have decided to address this
memorandum to you and to be transmitted on the occasion of the forth
coming visit of Mr. Biya Paul, President of the Republic of Cameroun
to the Holy see comes 18th October 2013.
We are calling on Mr. Biya to enter into meaningful dialogue with the
people and leaders of Southern Cameroons, the entity that formed part
of the Federal Union with their French counterpart in 1961, and have
resulted to covert and overt occupation and annexation following the
abolition of the said federation in 1972 and the revertion to the name
prior to the Union as "Republic of Cameroun" in 1984 to represent
both entities.
That, Peace and Security should be the watch words in the 21st century
to avert catastrophy, regarding the people of Southern Cameroons, who
for no reason or fault of theirs have been subjected to perpetual
occupation, servitude, annexation and assimilation by the former
regime of Alaji Amadou Ahidjo and his ( Paul Biya) leadership of La
Republique du Cameroun.
We recall that the Peace loving people of Southern Cameroons, decided
in a United Nations sponsored Plebiscite on 11th February 1961 to join
La Republique du Cameroun, under and over the consent to create a
Federal Union of two equal states, and not to be subjected to
territorial occupation, economic and human exploitation and plunder.
That, since 1972 the abolition of the " two state federation" was
an act of badfaith and breach of the consentual agreement between the
two people to live in peaceful harmony with each respecting the
cultural, educational and political heritages of their former colonial
administrations as per the 1946 Trusteeship Agreement and the 1961
Federal Constitution.
Your Holiness, since then the people of the Southern Cameroons through
various courageous leaders have persistently sued for peaceful
dialogue to review the statusquo of the two territories as per the
1961 Union Agreement, but the reactions of the francophone leadership
have been to resort to and use of brute force, annihilation, arbitrary
arrests, imprisonment and outright murder of innocent people asking
for their legitimate rights.
We do recall that on several occasions the UN representatives
including the former UN Secretary General, His excellency Kofi Annan,
the President of the UN General Assembly, the Secretary Generals of
the Commonwealth and other Eminent personalities and organisations
like the Africa Commission of Human and Peoples Rights have called on
the regime of Mr. Biya to negotiate and dialogue with the Anglophone
leadership to no avail.
Its for these reasons and more that we are once more seizing this
opportunity to invoke your Holiness, to use your Moral and Spiritual
Authority to call on Mr Biya to respect International law and calls
for dialogue between his people and the Southern Cameroons, to avoid
any future disruption of peace and security in the African sub region,
where senseless wars and conflicts abound and could have been avoided
before they escalated.
We reiterate the position of the people of Southern Cameroons on
Peaceful negotiations for mutual separation and that as a peace
loving people, we are ready to die for our God given rights, if Mr.
Biya and his regime of Anglophone stooges do not respect the
aspirations of the people of the Southern Cameroons for self
determination as per the United Nations Charter of 1945.
Your Holiness, without being considered as threats, we believe that
no people have the monopoly of violence and we will never resort to
violence but shall defend our selves when and where it is necessary,
as we are doing our best within our motto " THE FORCE OF ARGUMENT AND
NOT THE ARGUMENT OF FORCE!", to absurp these show of force and
continuously sue for peaceful dialogue.
God help Southern Cameroons
For and onbehalf of Southern Cameroons
Peace Corps for a free Southern Cameroons
DONE TODAY 1ST OCTOBER 2013 IN ROME
George

NB: PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SUGGEST IMPUTS OR OUTPUT TO THIS MEMO!
IT IS NOT A NEW ORGANISATION BUT A CIVIL GROUP OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS.




2013/10/1, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>:
> Southern Cameroons: Another Winnable Case Against La Republique du
> CamerounTumasang Martin
> Barrister at law, International Arbitrator, Chartered Surveyor, Property
> Valuer, Claims Quantum Consultant.MRICS [London], MCIArb [London], ABIFM
> [UK], ADIAC[Dubai], Barrister [Inner Temple London], PhD [Sheffield H
> University], LLM with merit (Oil and Gas Law) [Robert Gordon University
> Aberdeen], MSc (Construction Law and Dispute Resolution) [Leeds Metropolitan
> University], MSc (Prop Valuation) [Sheffield H University], Bar Professional
> (BPTC) [BPP University College London], PGDip [Sheffield H University],
> Graduate Diploma Law [Hertfordshire University], BSc (Hons) Quantity
> Surveying [University of Ife]Introduction
>
> As I have previously
> stated, Southern Cameroons has a winnable case but the problem is that the
> message/case being put across is so convoluted with parts with parts of it
> that
> are totally opposable to international law and not sustainable. I have
> stated
> repeatedly that a case based on the intention of the parties, the non
> achievement of intentions by the de facto union, and the non acceptance of
> the
> outcome by Southern Cameroons is a winnable case since it aligns with
> international law on such matters.
>
> The question that falls to
> be determined is whether there is another case against La Republique du
> Cameroon that is winnable. In order to answer this all important question,
> a
> systematic approach has to be followed as shown below:1.
> What are the obligations of La Republique towards Southern
> Cameroons or towards the international community?2.
> When or how was such an obligation created?3.
> When and how was such an obligation breached?
>
> Actionable obligations on
> state parties are usually created by treaties. In the absence of a treaty
> obligation that Southern Cameroons can hold La Republique du Cameroun
> against,
> is there some other mechanism where actionable obligations binding on La
> Republique du Cameroon can be created?. I think so.
>
> Reasoning
>
> In order to carry my
> readership at this point, I posit that reference to perhaps some case law
> might
> be more helpful than for me to be explaining recondite legal concepts at
> this
> juncture.
>
> On 17 March 2005, Ms Mukabagwiza, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, at the
> Sixty-first
> Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights said
>
> "Rwanda is one of the countries that has ratified the greatest number
> of international human rights instruments. In 2004 alone, our Government
> ratified ten of them, including those concerning the rights of women, the
> prevention and repression of corruption, the prohibition of weapons of mass
> destruction,
> and the environment. The few instruments not yet ratified will shortly be
> ratified and past reservations not yet withdrawn will shortly be
> withdrawn."
> Having stated what the Rwanda Minister of
> Justice of Rwanda said in 2005, I will like to come back home and state what
> Ahidjo
> said as elucidated in the Southern Cameroons case in Banjul
>
> In 1959 some perceptive minds in the
> Trusteeship Council expressed concerns that after attaining independence on
> 1
> January 1960 Republique du Cameroun could try to annex the Southern
> Cameroons.
> The Premier of French Cameroun, Mr. Ahidjo, denied any such intention or
> the
> possibility of any such action on the part of independent Republique du
> Cameroun. At the 849th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN,
> Mr. Ahidjo took the floor and gave the UN the solemn assurance that
> Republique
> du Cameroun is not annexationist. He declared: "We are not annexationists. …
> If
> our brothers of the British zone wish to unite with independent Cameroun,
> we
> are ready to discuss the matter with them, but we will do so on a footing of
> equality."
>
> In June 1960 he told the 'Agence
> Presse Camerounaise': "I have said and repeated, in the name of the
> Government
> [of Republique du Cameroun], that we do not have any annexationist design."
>
>
> In July the same year he again
> reassured the international community through the same press: "For us,
> there
> can be no question of annexation of the Southern Cameroons. We have
> envisaged a
> flexible form of union, a federal form." (above
> 3 paragraphs called from Merits stage in Banjul case)
>
> The question
> is what legal obligations if any are created by such statements and are
> they
> binding and actionable or they are just sales puff?.
>
> In order to answer the
> above question, it is pertinent to deal with the Rwanda case first and then
> see
> what inference Southern Cameroons can draw from the Ahidjo situation.
>
> In the Case
> concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application)
> 2000, Democratic Republic of the Congo vs. Rwanda, Jurisdiction of the
> Court
> and Admissibility at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court
> (ICJ) examined
> Rwanda's argument that it cannot be legally bound by the statement in
> question inasmuch as a statement made not by a Foreign
> Minister or a Head of Government "with automatic authority to
> bind the State in matters of international relations, but by a Minister of
> Justice, cannot bind the State to lift a
> particular reservation". In the case of Ahidjo, he made
> his statements as President of La Republique du Cameroon.
>
> In this connection, the
> Court observes that, in accordance with its consistent
> jurisprudence (Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J.
> Reports 1974, pp. 269-270, paras.
> 49-51; Application of the Convention on the
> Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
> Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
> Reports
> 1996 (II), p. 622, para. 44; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
> (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
> 2002, pp. 21-22, para. 53; see also Legal Status of Eastern Greenland
> (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment, 1933, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, p. 71),
> it is a well-established rule of international law that the Head of State,
> the Head of Government and the Minister
> for Foreign Affairs are deemed
> to represent the State merely by virtue of exercising their functions,
> including for the performance, on behalf of the said State, of unilateral
> acts having
> the force of international commitments.
>
> The Court moreover recalls
> that, in the matter of the conclusion of treaties, this rule of customary
> law
> finds expression in Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the
> Law
> of Treaties, which provides that
> "By virtue of their
> functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are
> considered as representing their State:
>
> (a) Heads of State, Heads of
> Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing
> all
> acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty".
>
> The Court notes, however,
> that with increasing frequency in modern international relations other
> persons
> representing a State in specific fields may be authorized by that State to
> bind
> it by their statements in respect of matters falling within their purview.
> This
> may be true, for example, of holders of technical ministerial portfolios
> exercising powers in their field of competence in the area of foreign
> relations,
> and even of certain officials.
>
> In this case, the Court
> notes first that Ms Mukabagwiza spoke before the United Nations Commission
> on
> Human Rights in her capacity as Minister of Justice of Rwanda and that she
> indicated inter alia that she was making her statement "on behalf of the
> Rwandan people". The Court further notes that the questions relating to the
> protection of human rights which were the subject of that statement fall
> within
> the purview of a Minister of Justice. It is the Court's view that the
> possibility cannot be ruled out in principle that a Minister of Justice
> may,
> under certain circumstances, bind the State he or she represents by his or
> her statements.
>
>
> The Court cannot therefore
> accept Rwanda's argument that Ms Mukabagwiza could not, by her statement,
> bind
> the Rwandan State internationally, merely because of the nature of the
> functions
> that she exercised. If even a mere Minister of Justice in her domain in
> the
> appropriate forum can make a statement and great legal and binding
> obligations
> on her country, it ipso facto follows that statements made by Ahidjo in the
> UN
> that La Republique will not annex Southern Cameroons creates a legal and
> binding obligation on La Republique du Cameroun.
>
> In order to determine the
> legal effect of that statement, the Court must, however, examine its actual
> content as well as the circumstances in which it was made (Nuclear Tests
> (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 269-270,
> para. 51; Frontier Dispute (Burkina
> Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment,
> I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 573-574, paras. 39-40).
>
> On the first point, the Court recalls that a
> statement of this kind can create legal obligations only if it is made in
> clear
> and specific terms (see Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) (New
> Zealand v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 267, para. 43; p.
> 269, para. 51; p. 472, para. 46; p. 474, para. 53).
>
> Ahidjo's
> statement at the UN that La Republique du Cameroun will not annex Southern
> Cameroons was made
> in clear and specific terms hence by the courts jurisprudence, creates a
> binding international legal obligation on La Republique du Cameroun.
> Conclusion
>
> La
> Republique du Cameroun has an actionable legal and binding international
> obligation not to annex Southern Cameroons created by the unilateral
> declaration in the UN by Ahidjo in the course of his employment as head of
> state of La Republique du Cameroun.
>
> All
> Southern Cameroons needs now to win the case against La Republique du
> Cameroun
> is to show that our present status is tantamount to annexation to La
> Republique
> du Cameroun. This is a clear, easy and winnable case without all the
> complicated joining and non joining issues that obscure the reality of our
> annexation and subordinate status in La Republique du Cameroon.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.