Prof concerned colleagues and everyone,
Permit me to briefly correct some misrepresentations that have been deliberately posted in an attempt to short circuit our efforts and sow the seed of confusion. Ours is a human endeavor and requires our sustained effort no matter the circumstances to present the best case possible for our people. In so doing, we are not oblivious that there may be opinions that may be at variance with ours. As long as such opinions are expressed in good faith and respectful of the highest ethical standards required by our profession, we shall welcome them. Welcoming such opinion does not mean we must uncritically accept them. This case is not a guinea pig for the experimentation of legal principles. The case arises and rests on known legal and evidentiary basis.
Southern Cameroonians do not need to be lawyers to know about our unique historical path from one form of colonial status to another since the mandate. S.N Tita and others already provided school books from which we were taught this history from our primary school days. We all know what went wrong and now seek that the wrong be redressed. This is the mandate this generation whether lawyers or not are saddled with. We expect to report back to our people after we have done a reasonably professional job, knowing for sure that the job commences with a determination of the forum to which we intend to submit our case. This is the key to preparing a brief. Without determining a forum, you cannot prepare a brief. And each forum has its rules of procedure and evidence and established thresholds which you must fulfill before a case can be given a hearing.
The Banjul case fulfilled the threshold established by the African Commission before a hearing on the merit of our case was granted. La Republique considered Banjul so critical that it evinced every effort to prevent the matter from being heard. The admissibility hearing and decision in the Banjul case has often been overlooked by persons who are unwilling to accept any victory attained on our behalf. The admissibility decision for the first time provided an opportunity to litigate issues which La Republique had buried under its policy of intimidation and deception.
For example this case and this monumental decision paved the way for our lawyers led by lead counsel Professor Anyangwe to submit that by as early as 1959, some diplomats at the Trusteeship Council were apprehensive of the intentions of Republique du Cameroun, and expressed concerns that after attaining independence La Republique 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." (Extracts from Southern Cameroons submissions in Communication 226/2003)
Contrary to some misconceived positions, Banjul has its merits which can never ever be wished away. First, the case was decided at the admissibility stage but also on the merit. It declined to order an end to the occupation of our territory. However, there are important jurisdictional reasons for this although we have questioned them. That is the way cases are fought. It did not grant that remedy but also opened the avenue for us to obtain that remedy elsewhere.
The AU is a subsidiary organ of the UN charged with conflict resolution under article 33 of the UN Charter. The Heads of State of the AU endorsed this judgment; in a sense tacitly adopting and taking upon the AU, the responsibility imposed by UN by paragraph 5 of Resolution 1608 (XV) of April 1961 whereby Her Majesty's Government of Great Britain, Republique du Cameroun, Southern Cameroons and the UN were under an obligation to organize talks to elaborate the terms of a treaty of union between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun, duly signed by all the parties, registered with the Secretary-General of the UN and then used as the basis for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement.
The joint effect of the AU-endorsed Banjul Judgment as well as paragraph 5 of Resolution 1608 (XV) imposed a negotiated treaty obligation as the means of settling the Southern Cameroons problem. The treaties obligation imposed by Resolution 1608 (XV) and Banjul are not invented by us nor did they contemplate treaties that are non-compliant with article 102 of the UN Charter. None of them contemplate a "model" of "inferred treaty of union" even when the parties concede non-existed and could never possibly exist under the legal and factual context within which this case is premised. La Republique abandoned the argument of potential inferred treaty after the admissibility stage of Banjul and went further to accept the outcome of the case on the merit. Why therefore advance arguments that go to no issue in the case?
The collective effect of the plaintiffs in Banjul, the Ambazonia interpleader at the ICJ, briefs and petitions filed in other circumstances, Akwanga Vs. Cameroun, Dinka V Cameroun, several petitions and protests filed by SCNC, SCAPO, SCYL and individuals within the Southern Cameroons have had the effect of preventing our adversary from ever asserting that we acquiesced to our colonial status. Significantly, these efforts and cases deprived La Republique the abuse to which it intended to put the Bakassi Judgment. In this regard, Denis Atemnkeng, Professor Calson Anyangwe, Fon Dinka, SCYL, SCNC and SCAPO have invariably drawn attention of the UN to the reaction of La Republique to the following paragraphs of the ICJ Judgment on Bakassi case and its commitment to respect the boundary of his country at independence:
. In para. 210, "Bakassi is said to have formed part of the area of the British Cameroons termed Southern Cameroons. This territorial definition is said to have been repeated in the trusteeship agreements which succeeded the mandates system after the Second World War….. Cameroon produces documentary evidence, British Orders-in-Council and maps which, it claims, evidence that Bakassi is consistently placed within the British Cameroons throughout this period….Cameroon points out that the map attached to the Report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner shows that the Bakassi Peninsula formed part of the Victoria South-West plebiscite district…. This would show that the peninsula was recognized by the United Nations as being a part of the Southern Cameroons."
Paragraph 213: "It is true that the Southern Cameroons Plebiscite Order-in-Council, 1960 makes no mention of any polling station bearing the name of a Bakassi village. Nor, however, does the Order-in-Council specifically exclude Bakassi from its scope. The Order simply refers to the Southern Cameroons as a whole. But at that time it was already clearly established that Bakassi formed part of the Southern Cameroons under British trusteeship."
"I President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon, in a bid to provide lasting peace to Bakassi conflict hereby commit myself and my government to respect the territorial boundaries of my country as obtained at its independence." (Green tree Agreement) I have read arguments challenging the validity of article 102 of the UN Charter on the grounds that the 1913 Anglo-German treaty was never ratified but admitted in evidence by the ICJ nevertheless. There was no disagreement that the treaty was duly negotiated and its terms agreed by the parties. The reasons for non-ratification arose from a force majeure which was the start of the First World War. The intention of the parties was clearly evident in the treaty. The analogy to our case is misplaced because unlike the Germans and Great Britain, no treaty was ever negotiated in the case of the decolonization of the Southern Cameroons as mandated by a UN Resolution.
I have stated that the contextualized significance of the commitment of Ahidjo never to annex the Southern Cameroons about which Professor Carlson Anyangwe had written and commented copiously in his book, conferences and legal briefs about and its significance to our case. I have elsewhere drawn attention to Albert Mukong's petition to the UN discussed in Professor Fabien Nkot book "Usage Politique de droit en Afrique: Cas du Cameroun. This is translated as Political uses of law in Africa: The case of Cameroon). A number of authors of Southern Cameroons origin, and this include Chief Victor Mukete lately as well foreign authors have written about this commitment and its effects. The commitment has been cited and addressed in different circumstances for the same reason.
A serious lawyer tasked with addressing this commitment will first address a variety of contextual and legal questions arising from this commitment. The first is to address the context in which the commitment was made and why Ahidjo found it important to make the commitment within and out of the UN. This context is significant in that it established the fears and opposition to "annexation" as an option in the putative union. It signifies that the loss of identity and sovereignty of the Southern Cameroons through annexation was never contemplated even in the intention of the parties from which an alleged "union treaty could be inferred". It is therefore preposterous for anyone to attempt to infer an intention other than one leading to independence and union of two equal states that formed the basis of the plebiscite. Even in this respect, there is a caveat because La Republique voted against the Resolution and was not bound by it. It followed through its objections by implicitly rejecting the Resolution by enacting a law annexing the territory while the UN processes of decolonization was ingoing and sought and obtained the complicity of the administering authority Great Britain in effectively annexing the territory in the night of September 30, 1961.
How then do we characterize the status and relations between La Republique and the Southern Cameroons after the plebiscite? An answer to this arises from the conduct of the UN, Great Britain and La Republique. In violation of the UN Resolution, La Republique even before the date fixed for the termination of the mandate, passed a law annexing the territory. According to Litumbe, Anyangwe, Lekene Donfack and others upon voting against Resolution 1608 (XV) La Republique forcefully and illegally annexed, the Southern Cameroons through an internal law of Republique du Cameroun.on 1 September 1961, Republique du Cameroun passed Law "No. 61-24 of 1 September 1961 "portant révision constitutionnelle et tendant à adapter la Constitution du 4 Mars 1960 aux nécessités d'un Cameroun réunifié." On 5 April 2012 a conference of experts summoned by La Republique that included some of those who advised Ahidjo on the annexation option came out with a report admitting that no treaty of union existed between Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroon. How can counsel bent on representing the Southern Cameroons strenuously urge his potential clients to submit to a union which his client's adversary has conceded did not exist and stated so publicly during the celebration of a critical date in its history whose events lend credence to his client's case?
This annexation law No. 61-24 of 1 September 1961 was not just a violation of Ahidjo's commitments but a violation of the UN Charter and UN Resolutions on the Southern Cameroons. This prompts the next question that a lawyer must address. What are the consequences, (if any), of the violations of the commitment by Ahidjo, UN Charter obligations and his subsequent conduct to annex and colonize the Southern Cameroons?
Differently put, why was annexation considered to be such a serious violation to necessitate the commitments Ahidjo made not to annex the Southern Cameroons in the case the Southern Cameroons opted for a union with La Republique?
The UN General Assembly Declaration No 1514( XV) of 14 December 1960 which has attained the status of jus cogens provided the UN the mandate to ignore spurious claims and violations perpetrated under the pretext of national sovereignty to directly intervene in cases where such violations like that of the Southern Cameroons occurred. Namibia, the Western Sahara etc. Additionally, subjecting a people to colonial rule is a crime for which the UN has a mandate to intervene and put an end to. In our case, Ahidjo was aware from inception about the well-founded fears of annexing and colonizing the Southern Cameroons and made commitments before and after the independence of La Republique that he would never annex our territory.
For anyone to hold that this argument has not been made probably because he is not privy to what has been done or what was done before he made his entry on the stage is simply disingenuous. Surprisingly, I found among those encouraging this posturing, persons who have published a compendium of some prior petitions and publications on our case with some of these arguments well laid out and the authors credited in some cases. Could it be that some of us may be too busy to the extent of forgetting so soon what is contained in our own publications? I respectfully beg to wonder.
We are impelled to look at the conduct of Great Britain and again borrow from Professor Carlson Anyangwe. "Britain was the administering, not the sovereign, authority in the British Southern Cameroons. The trust concept meant that administration of the territory was limited in time and that sovereignty over the territory continued to lie with the people of the territory, though for the time being they could not, on account of the trusteeship, exercise it". It was the intendment of the UN Resolution and the UN Charter that at the termination of the trust, the administration of the territory be handed over to the people in whom sovereignty belonged. This is not what happened in our case. Why?
Njoh Litumbe and Denis Atemnkeng writing separately but convincingly submitted that the The UN's policy has been that the "territory of a colony or other non–self-governing territory has under the Charter a status separate and distinct from that of the administering state" and that such status was to exist until the people of that territory had exercised the right of self–determination. (1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law. Resolution 1541 (XV). The declaration stated that there is an obligation by an administrating state to transmit information regarding a territory "which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and /or culturally from the country administering it". La Republique du Cameroun had been admitted a member state of the UN as from 20th September, 1960 and was therefore bound by the statutory provisions of the UN Charter, notably Art 102(2)[1] which provides that for a legal union between a UN member state with another territory, the terms of joining must be reduced into writing, and a copy of the signed Agreement by both parties deposited at the UN Secretariat, which would alert the world of the territorial variations of the member state's declared international boundaries inherited at independence from its colonial master. ".
According to Denis Atemnkeng, the Plebiscite vote was not a vote for the unconditional surrender of the Southern Cameroons territory to some foreign country. In the annual omnibus resolution on decolonisation, May 2002, the UN reiterated clearly that "in the decolonisation process there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination"
The right to external self-determination accorded Trust Territories and Territories under the mandate is an erga omnes norm available and applicable to all. Erga Omnes obligations are binding and applicable to all states without exception. Their moral and legal foundation cannot be questioned or impeached. This violation of this fundamental canon of the international system of which the UN is the guarantor is egregious considering that the UN undertook fact finding missions to the Southern Cameroons in 1949, 1952, 1955 and 1958 and concluded that the " reunification" of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic was not an option acceptable to the people and the UN.
If the UN expressly ruled out "reunification" and Ahidjo ruled out " annexation", we are left with the reality of the situation of blatant act of annexation and colonial imposition and the complicity and conspiracy that led to the perpetration of these crimes arising from the non-implementation of UN Resolutions relating to the meetings between the UN, the Administering power (GB), La Republique and the Southern Cameroons to negotiate and draw up a treaty of union pursuant to article 102 of the UN and submit to the UN Secretariat as evidence of the emergence of a new state with shared sovereignty with identifiable boundaries.
Nothing in the humiliating colonial status to which we were submitted would have amounted to an expression of self-determination by the people of the Southern Cameroons. An internal law of Republique du Cameroun passed on 1 September 1961, ( Law "No. 61-24 of 1 September 1961 "portant révision constitutionnelle et tendant à adapter la Constitution du 4 Mars 1960 aux nécessités d'un Cameroun réunifié.") annexing and colonizing the Southern Cameroons was not an expression a right of self-determination afforded the people of the Southern Cameroons by the UN Charter and UN Resolutions. Surrendering the administration of the territory in the night of 30 September 1961 at Tiko Airport by Great Britain to Ahidjo in what Gorgi Dinka calls a slave deal was not an expression of self-determination afforded the Southern Cameroons.
The different mutations leading to its change of name from the United Republique of Cameroun back to La Republique du Cameroun, the name by which it was granted independence and its borders frozen on January 1, 1960 was not an expressing of self-determination by the Southern Cameroons guaranteed or afforded by the UN Charter and UN Resolutions.
In the result, our case still lies squarely at the feet of the UN, which is the promoter, guarantor and protector of the rights afforded Trust territories and the respect of erga omnes obligations of states towards the exercise of the rights of self-determination. Contemporary UN Practice and record of interventions world –wide on legal and other grounds such as the resort to the use of force places our case on the list of emergency situations requiring attention.
Chief Charles A. Taku
NB: This very personal analysis may not be the gospel nor the best but it takes into consideration some contributions from a wider spectrum. This is also not our brief and has not received the endorsement of colleagues who heeded your call to work unite to seek legal solutions to our case. This personal opinion therefore in no way represents the very professional contributions which many of our people are labouring day and night to bring on board to enable us present a strong case. My analysis shows that many of our people at various moments presented the same arguments in support of our case. This to me a positive development. What we need to do is to harness our efforts and energies towards unity of purpose rather than wasting precious time misinforming and grandstanding. It is for this reason why I have made frantic attempts to discourage the postings that are intended to mislead, and insult others, irrespective of the ethical canons of espoused by this profession.
Respectfully Chief Charles A. Taku
On Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:34 PM, carlany2001 via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
No sir you must do better than that. Surely, you must know what crediting sources means. This is elementary.
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
From: Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:02:33 +0000
To: carlany2001@yahoo.com<carlany2001@yahoo.com>; 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>
Subject: @Carlson: RE: Ahidjo's UN Declaration: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons: Rejoinder
Prof,
we cannot change history. I thought of ignoring you and assume it is one of those wrong statements you make but then it might be better to clarify the point.
This was a rejoinder. I had acknowledged the source in the main article.
This is what the main article said
It said the above 3 paragraphs culled from Merits stage in Banjul case. I said I built on what others said. I will just assume you just arrived in the middle and did not see the main article to which the rejoinder is referring to. This a reposting of an old article and the source of Ahidjo's statement was stated clear. Boh Herbert said then that apart from the statement I got from the Banjul source, there is a book called "Discours D'Ahidjo" or something like that where more of such statements could be found.
Summary
While you would very much love that I forget to reference the source so that you can use it against me, unfortunate I did reference it clearly in the main article.
Take care
Tumasang
we cannot change history. I thought of ignoring you and assume it is one of those wrong statements you make but then it might be better to clarify the point.
This was a rejoinder. I had acknowledged the source in the main article.
This is what the main article said
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 culled from Merits stage in Banjul case)
It said the above 3 paragraphs culled from Merits stage in Banjul case. I said I built on what others said. I will just assume you just arrived in the middle and did not see the main article to which the rejoinder is referring to. This a reposting of an old article and the source of Ahidjo's statement was stated clear. Boh Herbert said then that apart from the statement I got from the Banjul source, there is a book called "Discours D'Ahidjo" or something like that where more of such statements could be found.
Summary
While you would very much love that I forget to reference the source so that you can use it against me, unfortunate I did reference it clearly in the main article.
Take care
Tumasang
Subject: Re: Ahidjo's UN Declaration: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons: Rejoinder
To: tumasangm@hotmail.com; atakyen2002@yahoo.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
From: carlany2001@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:32:52 +0000
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
To: tumasangm@hotmail.com; atakyen2002@yahoo.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
From: carlany2001@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:32:52 +0000
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.
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.
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 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."
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
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
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 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 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment