Corrected and reposted with apology.
Aaron and Dr Egbe,
You both have raised a question which even non lawyers can ask, get the answers and draw reasonable conclusions. There are a number of issues raised by this case. I have stated several times in the past when ever this argument arose that we must examine the actions and conduct of the parties to ascertain the violations that occurred. Once these violations are ascertained, we must establish the prejudice suffered. It must be established that the prejudice is substantial to warrant a redress.
The question of the intention of the parties is relevant, even crucial. But who were the parties in the plebiscite? Is it possible to ascertain the intention of La Republique in a plebiscite of which it was not a party? What may be relevant concerning La Republique and the Plebiscite is her conduct towards it and then draw reasonable inferences from her conduct, not intention.
The parties to the plebiscite were the British Southern Cameroons, and the UN that organized the plebiscite to provide the Southern Cameroons the opportunity to make certain choices. La Republique du Cameroon as a member of the UN and not a party to the plebiscite voted against the resolution. That conduct is relevant and must be taken into consideration when evaluating evidence of her subsequent conduct towards the plebiscite once the results were out in favor of independence by joining. It is also from the conduct and acts that the intention may be inferred but at what stage in the process?
La Republique du Cameroon played no recognizable role in the plebiscite other than exercising her sovereign right to vote against it.
Once the results of the Plebiscite were formalized by the UN, the UN passed a Resolution that brought in La Republique, to the implementation of the plebiscite results only. The UN passed a Resolution stating how the will of the Southern Cameroons expressed in the Plebiscite was to be implemented. For this to happen, it was necessary to bring the other joining party, La Republique du Cameroon together to work out the terms of the joining with the participation of the UN and the Administering Territory. This elicits the question of whether those conditions of joining were worked out pursuant to the UN Resolution. If yes what were they?. If not. Why? These are legitimate questions that must be asked and answered. I submit that these questions are central in a proper determination of this case. Intention I concede, can be inferred. But such inference must be the only reasonable inference in the circumstances of the case. Can it be reasonably inferred that the Southern Cameroons simply waived the independence clause and opted for pure annexation and colonial rule in La Republique du Cameroun? The question of tacit agreement could also be relevant. But again what tacit agreement can reasonably be inferred to obviate the mandatory provisions of article 102 of the UN Charter?
I fail to see any in this respect. To come to this conclusion, consideration must be had to the acts and conduct of La Republique prior to and after October 1, 1961. On 11 August 1961, Ahidjo introduced a bill in the La Republique du Cameroun's Parliament concerning the status of the Southern Cameroons. In his explanatory speech he stated that he understood the UN Resolution on the implementation of the Plebiscite Results to constitute an obligation on the Republique du Cameroun to take all measures it deemed necessary to adapt her internal institutions to accommodate the Southern Cameroons into the motherland. The Southern Cameroons was still a Trust Territory and in any case that is not what the UN Resolution stated. Pursuant to this, La Republique du Cameroun amended her Constitution to incorporate the Southern Cameroons under a putative Federation which it never ever intended to respect and did not respect. Did the Southern Cameroons acquiesce to these violations? Well, if any one still had doubts about the sustained protests that occurred, President Biya in his speech in Buea pointed that there were protests and even resistance. Additionally, one of the finest experts who undertook a study of the Cameroun Federation Lekene Dongfack concluded that the entire life span of the putative Federation was lived under a state of emergency.
For me, I think the evidence which is relevant in this case far from being the intention of the parties surrounding the Plebiscite; it is rather the acts and conduct of the parties from which reasonable inferences, including intention can be inferred. It is inconceivable therefore how such reasonable inferences can be made without examining the reasons why the negotiations ordered the UN failed to take place. Additionally the best evidence rule will require that evidence about the existence or not of a treaty should be explored before relying on other forms of proof to establish tacit agreement, or evidence from which intention of the parties may reasonably be inferred. The intention does not arise in vacuo. Unless expressly stated, it can only be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties. I do not therefore see how the arguments made by Hon Ayah and Mola Litumbe are inconsistent with General Principles of international law, customary international law and established jurisprudence relating to and relevant to the specific facts of this case. As the statute of the ICJ has stated, the jurisprudence established in each case is applicable only to the parties in those cases. This makes sense because each case presents its unique peculiarities which may not necessarily be found in the others. The jurisprudence established on the validity of consent for the purpose of the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICJ under article 36 of its statute ( the optional clause) concerning the deposit of documents affirming the jurisdiction of the ICJ may not necessarily be relevant when establishing the intention of parties which ordinarily a treaty or a positive provision of the law mandated that it must be established in writing and duly registered pursuant to article 102 of the UN Charter. It is always advisable to present legal arguments by setting out the facts, then the law applicable to regulate the factual situation, and jurisprudence with the caveat that the ICJ statute has expressly stated that the jurisprudence established in one case binds only the parties and therefore of persuasive effect (if any)only.
We have argued in the past that it is not plausible to cherry pick arguments in a case and state that this argument is winnable and this is not. Cases are never conducted and won that way. In a case, a party presents all the available arguments in his case for one may never know which argument will be retained until the verdict is out. I just won an appeals judgment in the Military High Command II case at the UNICTR in the trial of the High Command of the Rwandan Army during the genocide. When judgment was delivered on the 11 February 2014, all the grounds of appeal I filed on fair trial violations which I thought were the strongest based on the past jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber were dismissed. Rather, I won on grounds which I thought were the weakest, again informed by prior jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber.
I therefore see merit in the arguments made by Mola Njoh Litumbe and Hon Ayah. I see merit in the point raised concerning consent only to the extent that it arises on the basis of the acts and conduct of the parties arising in the implementation of the result of the plebiscite and thereafter and not the plebiscite itself of which Republique du Cameroun was never a party at that point in time. Dr Munzu's arguments lack merit in fact and in law. They are more of a political statement as Hon Ayah stated than any relevant argument based on the law which may help the parties to resolve the matter under contention. The African Court in Human and Peoples Rights emphasizing that the Southern Cameroons are a people within the specificity of their case have erga omnes rights that are not subject of derogation. How Dr Munza limited the case of the Southern Cameroons to the undoing or not of the results of the Plebiscite which is way off the case laid out by the Southern Cameroons is left for him alone to explain. In particular as La Republique has never made that case and will never ever make it. It attempts to make the arguments, Ahidjo's own statements, the acts and conduct of La Republique and Paul Biya's latest statements and acts will drown the arguments in a pool of humiliation.
Chief Charles A.Taku
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:32 PM, Chief Charles A.Taku <charto_us@yahoo.com> wrote:
Aaron and Dr Egbe,
You both have raised a question which even non lawyers can ask, get the answers and draw reasonable conclusions. There are a number of issues raised by this case. I have stated several times in the past when ever this argument arose that we must examine the actions and conduct of the parties to ascertain the violations that occurred. Once these violations are ascertained, we must establish the prejudice suffered. It must be established that the prejudice is substantial to warrant a redress.
The question of the intention of the parties is relevant, even crucial. But who were the parties in the plebiscite? Is it possible to ascertain the intention of La Republique in a plebiscite of which it was not a party? What may be relevant concerning La Republique and the Plebiscite is her conduct towards it and then draw reasonable inferences from her conduct, not intention.
The parties to the plebiscite were the British Southern Cameroons, and the UN that organized the plebiscite to provide the Southern Cameroons the opportunity to make certain choices. La Republique du Cameroon as a member of the UN and not a party to the plebiscite voted against the resolution. That conduct is relevant and must be taken into consideration when evaluation evidence of her subsequent conduct towards the plebiscite once the results were out in favor of independence by joining. It also from the conduct and acts that the intention may be inferred but at what stage in the process?
La Republique du Cameroon played no recognizable role in the plebiscite other than exercising her sovereign right to vote against it.
Once the results of the Plebiscite were formalized by the UN, the UN passed a Resolution that brought La Republique, to the implementation of the plebiscite results only. The UN passed a Resolution stating how the will of the Southern Cameroons expressed in the Plebiscite was to be implemented. For this to happen, it was necessary to bring the other joining party La Republique du Cameroon together to work out the terms of the joining with the participation of the UN and the Administering Territory. This brings the question of whether those conditions of joining were worked out pursuant to the UN Resolution. If yes what were they. If not why? These are legitimate questions that must be asked and answered. I submit that these questions are central in a proper determination of this case. Intention I concede, can be inferred. But such inference must be the only reasonable inference in the circumstances of the case. Can it be reasonably inferred that the Southern Cameroons simply waived the independence clause and opted for pure annexation and colonial rule in La Republique du Cameroun? The question of tacit agreement could also be relevant. But again what tacit agreement can reasonably be inferred to obviate the mandatory provisions of article 102 of the UN Charter?
I fail to see any in this respect. To come to this conclusion, consideration must be had to the acts and conduct of La Republique prior to and after October 1, 1961. On 11 August 1961, Ahidjo introduced a bill in the La Republique du Cameroun's Parliament concerning the status of the Southern Cameroons. In his explanatory speech he stated that he understood the UN Resolution on the implementation of the Plebiscite Results to constitute an obligation on the Republique du Cameroun to take all measures it deemed necessary to adapt her internal institutions to accommodate the Southern Cameroons into the motherland. The Southern Cameroons was still a Trust Territory and in any case that is not what the UN Resolution stated. Pursuant to this, La Republique du Cameroun amended her Constitution to incorporate the Southern Cameroons under a putative Federation which it never ever intended to respect and did not respect. Did the Southern Cameroons acquiesce to these violations? Well, if any one still hard doubts about the sustained protests President Biya in his speech in Buea pointed that there were protests and even resistance. Additionally, one of the finest experts who undertook a study of the Cameroun Federation Lekene Dongfack concluded that the entire life span of the putative Federation was lived under a state of emergency.
For me, I think the evidence which is relevant in this case far from being the intention of the parties surrounding the Plebiscite, it is rather the acts and conduct of the parties from when reasonable inferences, including intention can be inferred. It is inconceivable therefore how such reasonable inferences can be made without examining the reasons why the negotiations ordered the UN failed to take place. Additionally the best evidence rule will require that evidence about the existence or not a treaty should be explored before relying on other forms of proof to establish tacit agreement, or evidence from which intention of the parties may reasonably be inferred. The intention does not arise in vacuo. Unless expressly stated, it can only be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties. I do not therefore see how the arguments made by Hon Ayah and Mola Litumbe are inconsistent with General Principles of international law, customary international law and established jurisprudence relating to and relevant to the specific facts of this case. As the statute of the ICJ has stated, the jurisprudence established in each case is applicable only to the parties in those cases. This makes sense because each case presents its unique peculiarities which may not necessarily be found in the others. The jurisprudence established on the validity of consent for the purpose of the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICJ under article 36 of its statute ( optional clause) concerning the deposit of documents affirming the jurisdiction of the ICJ may not necessarily be relevant when establishing the intention of parties which ordinarily a treaty or a positive provision of the law mandated must be established in writing and duly registered pursuant to article 102 of the UN Charter. It is always advisable to make a legal argument by setting out the facts, then the law applicable to regulate the factual situation, and jurisprudence with the caveat that the ICJ statute has expressly stated that the jurisprudence established in one case binds only the parties and therefore of persuasive effect only.
We have argued in the past that it is not plausible to cherry pick arguments in a case and state that this argument is winnable and this is not. Cases are never conducted and won that way. In a case, a party presents all the arguments in his case for one may never know which argument will be retained until the verdict is out. I just won an appeals judgment in the Military High Command II case at the UNICTR in the trial of the High Command of the Rwandan Army during the genocide. When judgment was delivered on the 11 February 2014, all the grounds of appeal I filed on fair trial violations which I thought were the strongest based on the past jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber were dismissed. Rather, I won on grounds which I thought were the weakest, again informed by prior jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber.
I therefore see merit in the arguments made by Mola Njoh Litumbe and Hon Ayah. I see merit in the point raised concerning consent only to the extent that it arises only on the basis of the acts and conduct of the parties arising in the implementation of the result of the plebiscite and thereafter and not the plebiscite itself of which Republique du Cameroun was never a party at that point in time.
Chief Charles A.Taku
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:35 AM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien@gmail.com> wrote:
Dr Egbe
In the CRTV interview with Didier Oti in 1991 that I am talking
about, Dr Munzu explained calmly to the francophone journalist that
only Southern Cameroonians voted during the plebiscite and that for
any union to be valid there neede to be an agreement signed gy the
Southern Cameroons and the La Republique leadership. Munzu said that
despite both leaders having met in Foumban; no such document ever
existed. I remember Munzu saying that the only thing that existed was
article 47 of the federal costitution that stipulated that the
federation could not be violated. But Ahidjo went against it. I was
in Le Messager English by then and we hailed Munzu
To turn around 23 years after and make such horrendous is regretable
Aaron
On 2/24/14, louis egbe <louis_egbe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> All Dr. Munzu has to do to invalidate Mola's argument of no leagality is to
> produce the agreement between Southern Cameroons and LRC. The plebiscite was
> conducted only in Southern Cameroons and therefore CANNOT act as an
> agreement between the two states. Without any legal agreement, Dr. Munzu is
> incorrect while Mola Njoh Litumbe is right.
> Mbua
>
>
>
> On Monday, 24 February 2014, 15:38, Dennis Tambe <dbtmamfe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> This is the usual bull shit of the SCNC when caught naked - blackmail those
> who do not agree with them and impugn their motives. What does Dr. Munzu
> need from Paul Biya after 17 years as an Executive Officer with the United
> Nations? The man has a good pension to live off his twilight years and
> fools want to impugn his intellectual honesty and independence!
>
> You secessionists have the bare truth in front of your eyes debunking your
> much-vaunted Anglophone unity. My grandfather Mfor Tambe-Ayuk Mbechang of
> Besongabang was a steadfast nationalist who supported J.N. Foncha's campaign
> for reunification. Thanks to Mfor Tambe Ayuk-Mbechang, then Clan Head of
> Ayuk Etayak, Mamfe voted with the North West peoples to join Cameroon. That
> was a solemn decision by a majority of Southern Cameroons. We shall thrash
> you phantom secessionists if another plebiscite was held today. I stand
> behind the sagacity of my grandfather and J.N. Foncha.
>
> You and your SCNC ilk will not cow ardent nationalist Cameroonians into
> submission. Please stop your errant blackmail on Dr Munzu who is man enough
> to give a detached and disinterested opinion on the legality of the 1961
> reunification process.
>
> It is unscrupulous characters like Paul Ayah who should be hiding their
> faces in shame. Drowning political men clutching at errant causes.
> Yesterday it was CDPM and PAP. Today it is secessionist SCNC clap trap.
> What a shame for a lawyer who should be more principled.
>
> Mukefor
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: presidentayah@gmail.com
> CC: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com;
> ambasbay@googlegroups.com; hc.yaounde@fco.gov.uk; info@jaun.diplo.de;
> mkamtots@yahoo.fr; bharat.jishi@fco.gov.uk; cleverleymx@state.gov;
> yunde@international.gc.ca; heirdjm@state.gov; BoscainoSE@state.gov;
> OrtegaL2@state.gov; cellcom@prc.cm; contact@presidenceducameroun.com;
> spm@spm.gov.cm; minatdcm@minatd.cm; info@conac-cameroun.net;
> mbock18@yahoo.fr; cndhl@iccnet.cm; tansa.musa@yahoo.com; aritamfu@yahoo.com;
> asontaz@yahoo.com; soloamabo@yahoo.co.uk; recorderspecial@gmail.com;
> d_ayah@yahoo.com; fnjeba@yahoo.co.uk; caspa.franck@yahoo.com;
> alicetatah@yahoo.com; ericavebury@gmail.com; gbyaruha@amnesty.org;
> ticknorsb@state.gov; ngalantala2007@yahoo.com; akosonako@yahoo.com;
> nnyamngaisc@gmail.com; cdbanda26@yahoo.fr; ofir@kick-corruption.org;
> nkongho@chrda.org; mfyembe@gmail.com; scncbelgium@yahoo.co.uk;
> ac.cameroon@yahoo.com; jnkurikiye@amnesty.org; fepie@hotmail.com;
> gakwiderickjator@yahoo.com; takangesther@yahoo.com; nkoayime@yahoo.com;
> degbe@philander.edu; fomu633@aol.com; eadang3@yahoo.com;
> ciebatoula@yahoo.fr; arreyjoachim@hotmail.com; atehthomson@ymail.com;
> marcelltabe@yahoo.com; akoabunaw@yahoo.com; sipowa2005@yahoo.fr;
> afriqueechos@yahoo.fr; redaction@alerte-info.net; jbtalla2001@yahoo.fr;
> bernard.njonga@globenet.org; epiendengu@yahoo.com; njohlitumbe@ymail.com;
> secretariat@acdic.net; addec_6@hotmail.com; njifenthierry@gmail.com;
> sarreymbi@gmail.com; joanmbome@yahoo.com; asongu@charteredltd.com;
> cmfonjong@yahoo.co.uk; augustinewendung@yahoo.com;
> jeandedieubidias@yahoo.fr; sismondi2@yahoo.fr; floripay@yahoo.fr;
> iliaskovchirac@yahoo.fr; som1desire@gmail.com; mongwat60@yahoo.fr;
> mpondaniel@yahoo.fr; dzongang31@hotmail.com; bfru@hotmail.co.uk;
> adamoundamnjoya@yahoo.fr; bernard_acho@yahoo.com; sadialicha@yahoo.fr;
> njousid@gmail.com; yabaluc@hotmail.com; faakwa@yahoo.com;
> ajilipeter@yahoo.com; fritzane@yahoo.co.uk;
> yuh350@yahoo.fr; loeildusahel@yahoo.fr; valentineayah@yahoo.com;
> sinjumotaze@gmail.com; apellaipaven@yahoo.com; bruce_cox@sil.org;
> lemfonisaac@gmail.com; jmbeng@yahoo.com; ngohalbertconsult@yahoo.com;
> shiynyuyderick@yahoo.com; akojohan@yahoo.it; jtazifor@yahoo.co.uk;
> hassansama22@yahoo.com; enakaako@yahoo.com; moustaphabouba77@yahoo.fr;
> njohl42@gmail.com; benjamingah@gmail.com; erne_folef@yahoo.fr;
> atematem@yahoo.co.uk; gwannua73@gmail.com; afndangam@gmail.com;
> ntemfacofege@yahoo.com; annelyonga@yahoo.com
> From: ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:15:14 +0100
> Subject: [cameroon_politics] Re: Urgent: The Argument of FORCE
>
>
>
>
> It is most unfortunate that as Mr Biya, plans a new government, Simon Munzu
> of all people who want to sell his birthright for some red porridge instead
> of learning how to hunt. No wonder he says he is 'ministrable.' I do
> remember that in one full day, I caused (arm-twisted and blackmailed) my
> former colleagues at CRTV to give Simon Munzu priceless airtime in Cameroon
> Calling, Dimanche Midi and Actualité Hebdo so that he could present the
> plight of the suffering masses of the Southern-West Cameroons. You mean
> Munzu would sell all of that for a pathetic ministerial post in a dying
> regime? He should listen to Mama Foncha's story. I just listened to Mrs
> Foncha this morning wailing that she has not been paid a dime of her
> husband's pension since Foncha died. That they brought her invitation to go
> to Buea for the so-called Re-unification on the 20th, days after the event
> had actually started. Etc. Of course Ma Foncha told the SDO who brought the
> invitation
> off. When Foncha died, this regime bought him a coffin that was too short.
> And that coffin came days after the family had gotten tired of waiting and
> bought their own coffin. So there were two coffins at Foncha's memorial: an
> abomination in itself. Munzu should also remember that when Endeley died,
> the Biya regime did not put out a condolence message. In fact, I was the
> only one to put out a condolence message on the CRTV programme - The
> Presidency - which I anchored at the time. The Endeley family erroneously
> took it that Mr. Biya had sent them a condolence message. is this what Munzu
> wants to sell all his input into the Southern Cameroons case for? How sad.
> Pathetic.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM, PAP Communications Team
> <presidentayah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OPEN DOOR TO VIOLENCE
>>BY AYAH Paul ABINE
>>
>>Cameroon Radio Television - CRTV - in its programme "Cameroon Calling"
> of February 23, 2014, interviewed a number of persons about the
> high-sounding nothing christened "50th Anniversary of Reunification".
> Among them was Dr Simon Munzu. Munzu, inter alia, dismissed as
> unworkable Mola Njoh Litumbe's contention that there is no legal
> "reunification" between la Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons;
> and that
> there is need for dialogue, leading to the signing of an instrument of
> joining. The ground of Dr Munzu's stance is that the United Nations did
> endorse the plebiscite and that it cannot come back on what it has done. He
> was categorical that the United Nations will not even entertain the
> issue.
>>
>>With much respect, one would opine that Munzu made a
> political pronouncement akin to a layman's assertion rather than a
> statement of law. Even as law is essentially argumentative, it would be
> unfair not to suppose that Munzu, for incomprehensible reasons,
> overlooked basic notions of the law. With his leave, we propose to draw
> the learned man of law's attention to some basic facts and law.
>>
>>We all know that relevancy is the cardinal canon in every legal
> disputation. And so do we talk about the fact in issue; facts relevant
> to the fact in issue; and facts relevant to facts relevant to the fact
> in issue. In sum, it is elementary law that relevancy does not stretch
> with infinite elasticity. Munzu may therefore wish to agree with us that
> the conduct of the plebiscite has never been an issue relevant to the
> fact in issue that the joining of la Republique to Cameroun by Southern
> Cameroun is not evidenced in writing. Panels of eminent scholars have so
> found over the years, thereby endorsing our stance, among us Mola Njoh
> Litumbe, that there is no legal instrument (document) showing that the
> two countries have ever been one. The President of la Republique du
> Cameroun does not hold to the contrary.
>>
>>Intellectual honesty
> demands then that Munzu who holds himself out as being more
> knowledgeable than all of us, including the members of the various
> panels, (perhaps more president than the President of la Republique du
> Cameroun), and who consequently holds a contrary view, should name the
> relevant document, or even just refer us to it. That, in all honesty, is
> the legal means of proof or disproof. No-one needs to be a fellow in
> law to din this into Dr Munzu's head.
>>
>>If the learned doctor's
> trump card is the worthless document called "Cameroon Federal
> Constitution", Munzu knows, or at least is presumed to know, that the
> said document was enacted by the National Assembly of la Republique du
> Cameroun in April, 1961 - some six months prior to the purported
> reunification on October 1, 1961. Neither in the context of time nor
> space did the National Assembly of la Republique du Cameroun have
> jurisdiction over Southern Cameroons. It is elementary law that, as long
> as that foreign instrument, namely, "Cameroon Federal Constitution",
> was not ratified by the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly, (and
> perhaps the House of chiefs), prior to the date of the so-called
> reunification, the said document does not have any binding effect on
> Southern Cameroons.
>>
>>Even if any legal instrument there ever was
> that evidenced the joining, that did not dispense with the legal duty
> imposed by Article 102 of the United Nations Charter on the member state
> that la Republique to Cameroun had been since September 1960 to deposit
> the instrument with the United Nations as evidence of variation in the
> international boundaries of that member state as of its date of
> independence. It may not be insulting to say that there is nothing
> inscrutable about that contention; at least not for a person of Munzu's
> erudition.
>>
>>Granted by the widest and wildest stretch of
> imagination that there was joining as per the process laid down by the
> United Nations, on what ground does Munzu base his categorical assertion
> that the United Nations can never undo what it has done? Munzu knows,
> or ought to know, that Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia that was a member
> state of the United Nations. Similarly were East Timor, Eritrea, and
> South Sudan yesterday parts of member states of the United Nations. Yet
> did the same United Nations carve out those new states. If Southern
> Cameroons is a case sui generis, intellectual honesty here again burdens
> Munzu with proof of the fact that Southern Cameroons is a special case.
> Millions of Southern Cameroonians expect Munzu to unburden himself so
> as to dissipate rightful suspicion. That seems important and imperative
> because not too many ordinary Southern Cameroonians may understand what
> appears to be a subtle message from him.
>>
>>Indeed, Southern
> Cameroonians of a reasonable station in life do find Munzu's subtlety
> bare of ambiguity. They know that for his learning and relations with
> the United Nations, Munzu is possessed of all the facts. He surely is
> not wrong in his assertions relative to the conduct of international
> business by that world body. It is common knowledge that only violence
> compelled the United Nations to create the new nations out of its member
> states. Munzu therefore advises that our slogan of "the force of
> argument..." can never set the United Nations in motion. To explain in
> superfluity, Munzu is categorical that the only language the United
> Nations understands is violence. And that, after all, is enshrined in
> the charter of the world body!
>>
>>--
>>Communications & Public Relations,
>>People's Action Party, PAP
>>National Working Secretariat,
>>Buea, South West Region,
>>Cameroon.
>>
>>Motto: Work - Peace - Justice
>>
>>Tel: (00237) 78 35 80 29 / 94 99 87 43
>>
>>*E-mail: mailto:presidentayah@gmail.com
>>*Official Website: http://www.paprc2011.com/OR http://www.ayahpaul.net/
>>
>>*Facebook Page:
>> *http://www.facebook.com/#%21/profile.php?id=100001912645245
>>
>>--------------
>>"I profoundly believe all Cameroonians will some day speak the same
>>language, sing the same songs, dance to the same rhythm, dine and wine at
>>the same table. When the rich shall cater for the poor and the strong shall
>>
>>help the weak, the law shall be supreme, justice and peace shall forever
>>reign, if we are honest and believe we can get there. God bless
>>Cameroon."Hon. AYAH Paul ABINE, Cameroon 2011 Presidential Candidate and
>> PAP National Secretary General.
>>------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> I soar with wings like an Eagle:Eagle.
> "Eagles don't flock--you have to find them one at a time." H. Ross Perot
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (5)
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cameroon_politics/
>
> Visit Your Group
>
> * Privacy * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use
> .
>
> __,_._,___
> --
> 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.
>
--
Aaron Agien NYANGKWE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27
--
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.
In the CRTV interview with Didier Oti in 1991 that I am talking
about, Dr Munzu explained calmly to the francophone journalist that
only Southern Cameroonians voted during the plebiscite and that for
any union to be valid there neede to be an agreement signed gy the
Southern Cameroons and the La Republique leadership. Munzu said that
despite both leaders having met in Foumban; no such document ever
existed. I remember Munzu saying that the only thing that existed was
article 47 of the federal costitution that stipulated that the
federation could not be violated. But Ahidjo went against it. I was
in Le Messager English by then and we hailed Munzu
To turn around 23 years after and make such horrendous is regretable
Aaron
On 2/24/14, louis egbe <louis_egbe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> All Dr. Munzu has to do to invalidate Mola's argument of no leagality is to
> produce the agreement between Southern Cameroons and LRC. The plebiscite was
> conducted only in Southern Cameroons and therefore CANNOT act as an
> agreement between the two states. Without any legal agreement, Dr. Munzu is
> incorrect while Mola Njoh Litumbe is right.
> Mbua
>
>
>
> On Monday, 24 February 2014, 15:38, Dennis Tambe <dbtmamfe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> This is the usual bull shit of the SCNC when caught naked - blackmail those
> who do not agree with them and impugn their motives. What does Dr. Munzu
> need from Paul Biya after 17 years as an Executive Officer with the United
> Nations? The man has a good pension to live off his twilight years and
> fools want to impugn his intellectual honesty and independence!
>
> You secessionists have the bare truth in front of your eyes debunking your
> much-vaunted Anglophone unity. My grandfather Mfor Tambe-Ayuk Mbechang of
> Besongabang was a steadfast nationalist who supported J.N. Foncha's campaign
> for reunification. Thanks to Mfor Tambe Ayuk-Mbechang, then Clan Head of
> Ayuk Etayak, Mamfe voted with the North West peoples to join Cameroon. That
> was a solemn decision by a majority of Southern Cameroons. We shall thrash
> you phantom secessionists if another plebiscite was held today. I stand
> behind the sagacity of my grandfather and J.N. Foncha.
>
> You and your SCNC ilk will not cow ardent nationalist Cameroonians into
> submission. Please stop your errant blackmail on Dr Munzu who is man enough
> to give a detached and disinterested opinion on the legality of the 1961
> reunification process.
>
> It is unscrupulous characters like Paul Ayah who should be hiding their
> faces in shame. Drowning political men clutching at errant causes.
> Yesterday it was CDPM and PAP. Today it is secessionist SCNC clap trap.
> What a shame for a lawyer who should be more principled.
>
> Mukefor
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: presidentayah@gmail.com
> CC: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com;
> ambasbay@googlegroups.com; hc.yaounde@fco.gov.uk; info@jaun.diplo.de;
> mkamtots@yahoo.fr; bharat.jishi@fco.gov.uk; cleverleymx@state.gov;
> yunde@international.gc.ca; heirdjm@state.gov; BoscainoSE@state.gov;
> OrtegaL2@state.gov; cellcom@prc.cm; contact@presidenceducameroun.com;
> spm@spm.gov.cm; minatdcm@minatd.cm; info@conac-cameroun.net;
> mbock18@yahoo.fr; cndhl@iccnet.cm; tansa.musa@yahoo.com; aritamfu@yahoo.com;
> asontaz@yahoo.com; soloamabo@yahoo.co.uk; recorderspecial@gmail.com;
> d_ayah@yahoo.com; fnjeba@yahoo.co.uk; caspa.franck@yahoo.com;
> alicetatah@yahoo.com; ericavebury@gmail.com; gbyaruha@amnesty.org;
> ticknorsb@state.gov; ngalantala2007@yahoo.com; akosonako@yahoo.com;
> nnyamngaisc@gmail.com; cdbanda26@yahoo.fr; ofir@kick-corruption.org;
> nkongho@chrda.org; mfyembe@gmail.com; scncbelgium@yahoo.co.uk;
> ac.cameroon@yahoo.com; jnkurikiye@amnesty.org; fepie@hotmail.com;
> gakwiderickjator@yahoo.com; takangesther@yahoo.com; nkoayime@yahoo.com;
> degbe@philander.edu; fomu633@aol.com; eadang3@yahoo.com;
> ciebatoula@yahoo.fr; arreyjoachim@hotmail.com; atehthomson@ymail.com;
> marcelltabe@yahoo.com; akoabunaw@yahoo.com; sipowa2005@yahoo.fr;
> afriqueechos@yahoo.fr; redaction@alerte-info.net; jbtalla2001@yahoo.fr;
> bernard.njonga@globenet.org; epiendengu@yahoo.com; njohlitumbe@ymail.com;
> secretariat@acdic.net; addec_6@hotmail.com; njifenthierry@gmail.com;
> sarreymbi@gmail.com; joanmbome@yahoo.com; asongu@charteredltd.com;
> cmfonjong@yahoo.co.uk; augustinewendung@yahoo.com;
> jeandedieubidias@yahoo.fr; sismondi2@yahoo.fr; floripay@yahoo.fr;
> iliaskovchirac@yahoo.fr; som1desire@gmail.com; mongwat60@yahoo.fr;
> mpondaniel@yahoo.fr; dzongang31@hotmail.com; bfru@hotmail.co.uk;
> adamoundamnjoya@yahoo.fr; bernard_acho@yahoo.com; sadialicha@yahoo.fr;
> njousid@gmail.com; yabaluc@hotmail.com; faakwa@yahoo.com;
> ajilipeter@yahoo.com; fritzane@yahoo.co.uk;
> yuh350@yahoo.fr; loeildusahel@yahoo.fr; valentineayah@yahoo.com;
> sinjumotaze@gmail.com; apellaipaven@yahoo.com; bruce_cox@sil.org;
> lemfonisaac@gmail.com; jmbeng@yahoo.com; ngohalbertconsult@yahoo.com;
> shiynyuyderick@yahoo.com; akojohan@yahoo.it; jtazifor@yahoo.co.uk;
> hassansama22@yahoo.com; enakaako@yahoo.com; moustaphabouba77@yahoo.fr;
> njohl42@gmail.com; benjamingah@gmail.com; erne_folef@yahoo.fr;
> atematem@yahoo.co.uk; gwannua73@gmail.com; afndangam@gmail.com;
> ntemfacofege@yahoo.com; annelyonga@yahoo.com
> From: ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:15:14 +0100
> Subject: [cameroon_politics] Re: Urgent: The Argument of FORCE
>
>
>
>
> It is most unfortunate that as Mr Biya, plans a new government, Simon Munzu
> of all people who want to sell his birthright for some red porridge instead
> of learning how to hunt. No wonder he says he is 'ministrable.' I do
> remember that in one full day, I caused (arm-twisted and blackmailed) my
> former colleagues at CRTV to give Simon Munzu priceless airtime in Cameroon
> Calling, Dimanche Midi and Actualité Hebdo so that he could present the
> plight of the suffering masses of the Southern-West Cameroons. You mean
> Munzu would sell all of that for a pathetic ministerial post in a dying
> regime? He should listen to Mama Foncha's story. I just listened to Mrs
> Foncha this morning wailing that she has not been paid a dime of her
> husband's pension since Foncha died. That they brought her invitation to go
> to Buea for the so-called Re-unification on the 20th, days after the event
> had actually started. Etc. Of course Ma Foncha told the SDO who brought the
> invitation
> off. When Foncha died, this regime bought him a coffin that was too short.
> And that coffin came days after the family had gotten tired of waiting and
> bought their own coffin. So there were two coffins at Foncha's memorial: an
> abomination in itself. Munzu should also remember that when Endeley died,
> the Biya regime did not put out a condolence message. In fact, I was the
> only one to put out a condolence message on the CRTV programme - The
> Presidency - which I anchored at the time. The Endeley family erroneously
> took it that Mr. Biya had sent them a condolence message. is this what Munzu
> wants to sell all his input into the Southern Cameroons case for? How sad.
> Pathetic.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM, PAP Communications Team
> <presidentayah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OPEN DOOR TO VIOLENCE
>>BY AYAH Paul ABINE
>>
>>Cameroon Radio Television - CRTV - in its programme "Cameroon Calling"
> of February 23, 2014, interviewed a number of persons about the
> high-sounding nothing christened "50th Anniversary of Reunification".
> Among them was Dr Simon Munzu. Munzu, inter alia, dismissed as
> unworkable Mola Njoh Litumbe's contention that there is no legal
> "reunification" between la Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons;
> and that
> there is need for dialogue, leading to the signing of an instrument of
> joining. The ground of Dr Munzu's stance is that the United Nations did
> endorse the plebiscite and that it cannot come back on what it has done. He
> was categorical that the United Nations will not even entertain the
> issue.
>>
>>With much respect, one would opine that Munzu made a
> political pronouncement akin to a layman's assertion rather than a
> statement of law. Even as law is essentially argumentative, it would be
> unfair not to suppose that Munzu, for incomprehensible reasons,
> overlooked basic notions of the law. With his leave, we propose to draw
> the learned man of law's attention to some basic facts and law.
>>
>>We all know that relevancy is the cardinal canon in every legal
> disputation. And so do we talk about the fact in issue; facts relevant
> to the fact in issue; and facts relevant to facts relevant to the fact
> in issue. In sum, it is elementary law that relevancy does not stretch
> with infinite elasticity. Munzu may therefore wish to agree with us that
> the conduct of the plebiscite has never been an issue relevant to the
> fact in issue that the joining of la Republique to Cameroun by Southern
> Cameroun is not evidenced in writing. Panels of eminent scholars have so
> found over the years, thereby endorsing our stance, among us Mola Njoh
> Litumbe, that there is no legal instrument (document) showing that the
> two countries have ever been one. The President of la Republique du
> Cameroun does not hold to the contrary.
>>
>>Intellectual honesty
> demands then that Munzu who holds himself out as being more
> knowledgeable than all of us, including the members of the various
> panels, (perhaps more president than the President of la Republique du
> Cameroun), and who consequently holds a contrary view, should name the
> relevant document, or even just refer us to it. That, in all honesty, is
> the legal means of proof or disproof. No-one needs to be a fellow in
> law to din this into Dr Munzu's head.
>>
>>If the learned doctor's
> trump card is the worthless document called "Cameroon Federal
> Constitution", Munzu knows, or at least is presumed to know, that the
> said document was enacted by the National Assembly of la Republique du
> Cameroun in April, 1961 - some six months prior to the purported
> reunification on October 1, 1961. Neither in the context of time nor
> space did the National Assembly of la Republique du Cameroun have
> jurisdiction over Southern Cameroons. It is elementary law that, as long
> as that foreign instrument, namely, "Cameroon Federal Constitution",
> was not ratified by the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly, (and
> perhaps the House of chiefs), prior to the date of the so-called
> reunification, the said document does not have any binding effect on
> Southern Cameroons.
>>
>>Even if any legal instrument there ever was
> that evidenced the joining, that did not dispense with the legal duty
> imposed by Article 102 of the United Nations Charter on the member state
> that la Republique to Cameroun had been since September 1960 to deposit
> the instrument with the United Nations as evidence of variation in the
> international boundaries of that member state as of its date of
> independence. It may not be insulting to say that there is nothing
> inscrutable about that contention; at least not for a person of Munzu's
> erudition.
>>
>>Granted by the widest and wildest stretch of
> imagination that there was joining as per the process laid down by the
> United Nations, on what ground does Munzu base his categorical assertion
> that the United Nations can never undo what it has done? Munzu knows,
> or ought to know, that Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia that was a member
> state of the United Nations. Similarly were East Timor, Eritrea, and
> South Sudan yesterday parts of member states of the United Nations. Yet
> did the same United Nations carve out those new states. If Southern
> Cameroons is a case sui generis, intellectual honesty here again burdens
> Munzu with proof of the fact that Southern Cameroons is a special case.
> Millions of Southern Cameroonians expect Munzu to unburden himself so
> as to dissipate rightful suspicion. That seems important and imperative
> because not too many ordinary Southern Cameroonians may understand what
> appears to be a subtle message from him.
>>
>>Indeed, Southern
> Cameroonians of a reasonable station in life do find Munzu's subtlety
> bare of ambiguity. They know that for his learning and relations with
> the United Nations, Munzu is possessed of all the facts. He surely is
> not wrong in his assertions relative to the conduct of international
> business by that world body. It is common knowledge that only violence
> compelled the United Nations to create the new nations out of its member
> states. Munzu therefore advises that our slogan of "the force of
> argument..." can never set the United Nations in motion. To explain in
> superfluity, Munzu is categorical that the only language the United
> Nations understands is violence. And that, after all, is enshrined in
> the charter of the world body!
>>
>>--
>>Communications & Public Relations,
>>People's Action Party, PAP
>>National Working Secretariat,
>>Buea, South West Region,
>>Cameroon.
>>
>>Motto: Work - Peace - Justice
>>
>>Tel: (00237) 78 35 80 29 / 94 99 87 43
>>
>>*E-mail: mailto:presidentayah@gmail.com
>>*Official Website: http://www.paprc2011.com/OR http://www.ayahpaul.net/
>>
>>*Facebook Page:
>> *http://www.facebook.com/#%21/profile.php?id=100001912645245
>>
>>--------------
>>"I profoundly believe all Cameroonians will some day speak the same
>>language, sing the same songs, dance to the same rhythm, dine and wine at
>>the same table. When the rich shall cater for the poor and the strong shall
>>
>>help the weak, the law shall be supreme, justice and peace shall forever
>>reign, if we are honest and believe we can get there. God bless
>>Cameroon."Hon. AYAH Paul ABINE, Cameroon 2011 Presidential Candidate and
>> PAP National Secretary General.
>>------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> I soar with wings like an Eagle:Eagle.
> "Eagles don't flock--you have to find them one at a time." H. Ross Perot
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (5)
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cameroon_politics/
>
> Visit Your Group
>
> * Privacy * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use
> .
>
> __,_._,___
> --
> 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.
>
--
Aaron Agien NYANGKWE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27
--
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment