Re: Ahidjo's UN Declaration: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons: Rejoinder

Thanks Prof.

 He has been dancing around the jurisprudence of the ICJ on access under article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute also called the optional clause and purporting that it  applies to our case! Let any one who cherishes this aproach read and reread the script.

I am also surprised that a claim is being laid that no one has ever written about the commitment of Ahidjo never to annex the Southern Cameroons. This makes me wonder if he ever read the pleadings in the Banjul case, your published works, many petitions filed by Fon Dinka, Albert Munkong's petition to the UN cited by Professor Fabien Nkot. In that circumstance, Mukong wrote to the UN accepting the bait of Paul Biya in a press interview in France promising to organize a referendum in the Southern Cameroons.

Our case has a context and that context is what happened in the UN and thereafter. A brief does not hang in a vacuum. There are procedural thresholds, evidential thresholds and the jurisprudence is only cited to support them. One key element in admissible briefs is language. Where the language is unprofessional, the brief is dismissed.

Thanks Prof. Thanks Dr Gumne and all others who expect our case to be given the seriousness it deserves. Prof. luckily, this public show has not dented the worthwhile efforts we are making and will continue to make until we prevail. Luckily, several Southern Cameroon lawyers have opted to continue the effort in conformity with the ethics of the profession we hold dear.

Thanks again.

 Chief C. Taku

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:32 AM, carlany2001 via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Right from the very beginning of the continuing self-advertising postings from the author of this recent posting I expressed worry about the legal incoherence of the pieces and the lack of a full understanding of the facts of the case.

I now call attention to another worrying matter, one that relates to intellectual integrity. Perhaps some readers might not know that the author of the pieces I am referring to plagiarises.

This is not only unacceptable but very sad! Intellectual probity demands that he fully acknowledges all his sources rather than copying passages and ideas and passing them off as the fruit of his labours. I urge him to re-do all the pieces he has put on the Internet on the matter at hand, fully acknowledging all his sources.

Professor Anyangwe

Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!

From: Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com>

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:59:41 +0000

To: Prof. Martin Ayim<atakyen2002@yahoo.com>; Ayaba Cho Lucas SOUTHERN CAMEROONS INDEPENDENCE<yabaluc@hotmail.com>; ambasbay@googlegroups.com<ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; ftroit<ftroit@hotmail.com>; free_ambazonians@yahoogroups.com<free_ambazonians@yahoogroups.com>

Cc: Njoh Litumbe<njohlitumbe@ymail.com>; njohl42@gmail.com<njohl42@gmail.com>; Martin Yembe<mfyembe@gmail.com>; ngwang gumne<t164ngng@gmx.co.uk>; atoabechied001@hotmail.com<atoabechied001@hotmail.com>; carlany2001@yahoo.com<carlany2001@yahoo.com>

Subject: RE: Ahidjo's UN Declaration: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons: Rejoinder

Prof Ayim,
before I close this topic, this is a rejoinder I wrote sometime ago on this Ahidjo's unilateral international binding obligation. I introduced for the first time in the struggle the concept of Obligation of Result.
 

Ahidjo's Statement at the UN: Rejoinder

Tumasang 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 previously stated, at the 849^th 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."

Nature of Obligation

In the previous posting, I posited that Ahidjo's statement as Head of State of La Republique du Cameroon at the UN and other international fora is a unilaterally declared international obligation that cannot be breached without engaging La Republique du Cameroun's state responsibility.

The question some perceptive legal minds will ask is what type of obligation is his declaration and did he not fulfil his obligation by not annexing Southern Cameroons but instead allowing the UN supervised plebiscite and a joining as recommended by the UN?.

 In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to describe the above unilateral obligation by Ahidjo at the UN.

The obligation is an Obligation of Result. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in  Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerningAvena and Other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 3, describes an obligation of result as an obligation which requires a specific outcome.

The choice of means to come about the outcome was left with La Republique du Cameroun. Ahidjo did not state on behalf of La Republique du Cameroon that it will not annex Southern Cameroons unless the people of Southern Cameroons agree to be annexed hence the so called 1972 Referendum cannot be called as a defence against the annexation of Southern Cameroons.

La Republique du Cameroon did not state at the UN that it will follow the UN proceedure only as a pretension and to cancel the outcome later and annex the territory to La Republique du Cameroun after dissolving all the institutions of Southern Cameroons.

The obligation is an obligation of result. This means that at any time, irrespective of the means taken, if Southern Cameroons found itself annexed to La Republique du Cameroun, then La Republique du Cameroon has breached the actionable international obligation deriving from the statement of Ahidjo at the UN and other international fora.

The breach of the obligation is not depended on whether there was a joining or not. It is an obligation of result. Even if there was a joining (which is strenuously denied), the fact that Southern Cameroons today has no institutions of its own and is being considered an appendage of La Republique du Cameroun is an actionable breach of an international obligation that engages the state responsibility of La Republique du Cameroun.

Conclusion

The above is a case La Republique du Cameroun cannot run from. It cannot say the present state of Southern Cameroons with no remaining institutions of its own is not annexation of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun irrespective of the route taken to obtain the result. The obligation in international law is one of result and not of means. La Repbulique du Cameroun had the choice to use any means possible to avoid annexing Southern Cameroons. It's state responsibility is fully engaged on this breach.

 

 

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:51:58 -0700
From: atakyen2002@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Ahidjo's UN Declaration: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons
To: tumasangm@hotmail.com; yabaluc@hotmail.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com; ftroit@hotmail.com; free_ambazonians@yahoogroups.com
CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com; njohl42@gmail.com; mfyembe@gmail.com; t164ngng@gmx.co.uk; atoabechied001@hotmail.com; carlany2001@yahoo.com

Barrister Tumasang,

Thank you for this posting "Southern Cameroons: Ahidjo's Unilateral Binding Declaration".  This is simple, to the point, and powerful. This incriminating declaration, which has been violated, when taken straight to the UN can make a big difference. The UN only comes when the language they understand is spoken. Speaking to ourselves is a waste of precious time.

President Biya in 1984 created another opening. I call on the powers that be, to with a cool head digest and utilize what is good, like this posting. Some folks are very quick to dismiss inputs and do not just want to think out of the box. Some when they see particular names, they support whatever they write. This is bad for the struggle. You can hate a person, but like his point. If we adhere to this principle, we will see how we have delayed our own destiny since 1985. Too much of EGO and, if -not- me- nothing -else- attitude. This is self destruction.

Barrister, I charge you to collaborate with other legal minds at the back scene, not in this public forum, and come out with a UNITED legal way forwards through a Release? This forum, which is open to all and sundry,  is not the best medium for these write ups. Thank You. 

 

____________________________________
Martin Ayim  Ph.D., MPH, MCHES
Endowed Professor of Health Education & Health Promotion
International Representative (IR) at National Association of African American Studies & Affiliates
Academic Advisor and Health Promotion Program Coordinator
Department of Kinesiology, Sport and Leisure Studies (KSLS)
Campus Box 4244| Grambling, LA 71245
Phone: 318-274-2372 | Fax: 318-274-3202
ayimm@gram.edu | www.gram.edu 

atakyen2002@yahoo.com
-----------

www.linkedin.com/pub/prof-martin-ayim/43/997/8b4/

VIDEOS:  http://www.youtube.com/user/martinayim11

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

On Friday, September 26, 2014 8:35 PM, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

Prof Ayim said he did not agree with my demolishing all the previous legal tenets of the Southern Cameroons struggle and I said I act like a surgeon, cutting the bad parts and building on the good parts to produce something new.

I gave an example of me taking Ahidjo's UN Unilateral Declaration, which had been mentioned in Banjul, using serious law and analysis to build a standalone case on it. I said I have built a Grand Unified Legal Theory (GULT) of the Southern Cameroons struggle where all our claims in General International Law on the sovereignty issue against La Republique du Cameroun is in one model made up of 6 parts, and the model unifies the no joining and joining but later secession camps. Intentionally, I did not put any treaty based claim in the model such as breach of African Charter on Human and People's Rights that La Republique du Cameroun signed.

Below is what I wrote in 2013. It shows the reasoning behind just one of the 6 parts of the model, and how I built on what had been stated before.

Southern Cameroons: Ahidjo's Unilateral Binding Declaration

Tumasang Martin 

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 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 in relation to Southern Cameroons?

2.    When or how were such obligations created?

3.    When and how were such obligations 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 849^th 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 and/or by La Republique du Cameroun. This is alternative is a standalone claim, it is 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/d/optout.