Re: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons

Barrister Tumasang, I do not agree with your bashing everything else, You have added a dimension of INTENTIONS that is worth examining and incorporating. We should not wave him off as he is doing. " He wrote,

"You can love me or loath me but the analysis and legal model I have developed is what stands on the Southern Cameroons struggle today despite what some misguided "experts" from La Republique du Cameroun might have said that there is no Union because there is no "union document" whilst they failed woefully to consider the intentions of the parties at the time of the de facto union, if the intentions were realised and if the parties accepted the outcome which could form a tacit agreement. I believe there was no Union ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH WINGS OF THE PROBLEM.

Previous strong points we have are:

1. The UN erred and has violated all its resolutions and statutes with regard to decolonization and the granting of Independence to Trust Territories with regard to Southern Cameroons.
2. The 1984 unilateral dissolution of the " illegal Union", which is SECESSION, gave Southern Cameroons all the rights to restore its previous identity according to the International Law of Creation and Dissolution of States, Case in Point SENEGAL and GAMBIA (SENEGAMBIA).

MY FINAL CONTRIBUTION:
Assertion of Number Two under any name, and better still with a different identity, is our best option to avoid labels of terrorists. This assertion will cause the UN to come in running and will bring to light Option 1 and the intentions piece by Tumasang. Let us use our strength to fight a giant. Victory is Sure. No use for repetitiveness and recycling of noise and writings. Southern Cameroons has a sound case. Cameroon knows it.

____________________________________
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 Thu, 9/25/14, 'Timothy Mbeseha' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons
To: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>, "Martin Tumasang" <tumasangm@hotmail.com>, "ftroit" <ftroit@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Njoh Litumbe" <njohlitumbe@ymail.com>, "njohl42@gmail.com" <njohl42@gmail.com>, "Charles Taku" <charto_us@yahoo.com>, "Martin Yembe" <mfyembe@gmail.com>, "ngwang gumne" <t164ngng@gmx.co.uk>, "atoabechied001@hotmail.com" <atoabechied001@hotmail.com>, "carlany2001@yahoo.com" <carlany2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014, 8:38 AM

Thanks Mr. Ayaba for
this insightful contribution. In the face of Tumasang's
diatribes many including me have decided not to waste our
time in responding to his writings. I believe strongly that
Tumasang is not an advocate of former British Southern
Cameroon's cause. He is indeed an opponent bent on
trying to show as far as possible how the case is not
winnable.  
  It is my conclusion that in spite of Tamusang's
reach resume, he does not appear to have any meaningful
court room experience in matters such as the British
Southern Cameroon's case. This is
probably why he engages in conjectures all the time;
formulating theories and trying to defend them. Any court of
law worth the salt deals with facts as they are before it,
not on speculative arguments.  Tumasang should have
admitted that even after the plebiscite, the UN General
Assembly did not declare that Southern Cameroon had joined
La Republique du Cameroun. The GA of the UN only took note
of the plebiscite results and went on to fix a date for
independence "by joining" being contingent on
other things happening among them the convening of a three
party forum ( Great Britain, Southern Cameroon and La
Republique du Cameroun) to work out details of the proposed
joining. That did not happen and has never happened period.
Let Tamusang come out with some facts to challenge this
assertion not his personal conjectures or
speculations. 
   Interestingly our learned brother Tumasang
reads Article 102 with very strange legal lenses. He either
does not know or knows but refuses to accept that in the
construction of legal statutes such as the UN Charter, when
the verb "SHALL" is used, that provision is
mandatory, not optional. Again our learned brother fails to
or refuses to see that Article 102 of the UN Charter under
discussion does not apply only to Treaties. It talks of
" Treaties and other International Agreements".
 In that wise, our opponent (La Republique du Cameroun)
is precluded from ever invoking any such treaty or even
agreement. Article 102 (2) states clearly thus: "No party to any such
treaty or international agreement which has not been
registered in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or
agreement before any organ of the United
Nations"     As
suggested earlier by Mola Njoh Litumbe, Prof. Ayangwe and
others, I agree that we better just ignore Tumasang's
writings. He will eventually stop if no one reacts to his
strange contributions.Mbeseha


On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 4:17 PM,
Ayaba Cho Lucas SOUTHERN CAMEROONS INDEPENDENCE
<yabaluc@hotmail.com> wrote:








Dr. Tumusang,
I find your approach extremely
very pathetic and a total misconception on both the
methodological and operationalisation approach to model
construction. The building of a theoretical position or
model through which proper analysis can be done is a
thorough process whose approach is inductive in nature. Such
an approach begins with a specific observation, building of
hypothesis and finally ending up with the construction of
some general conclusions or a theory(call it model). What
you have constructed are 'SUPPOSITIONS'.
Suppositions are uncertain ideas or believes. So what you
are expecting us to do is use your suppositions as a point
of departure in building a new model. This is an extremely
disingenuous approach in any legal reasoning. Point 1
and 2 of your foundational argument is a falsified version
of the arguments made. Stop confounding political positions
with legal arguments.
Every legal mind understands that occupying powers have
obligations towards the occupied and these obligations form
the basis of the Four Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague
regulations. Your point 3 is a primitive way of construing
the law. If our argument has been that there was no treaty
of Union, it is up to you to search for the existence of any
tacit agreement that actually transferred sovereignty to
Yaounde. Even if there was a treaty of UNION, the basis of
such a UNION was shared sovereignty and not otherwise. So in
the presence of a 'tacit agreement or treaty of UNION,
based on the object and purpose of the plebiscite,
sovereignty would have been shared and not transferred. Be
reminded that Treaty or tacit agreement interpretation
follows legal rules and the object and purpose of the
drafters, travaux preparatoire, relevant rules of
international law and even the nature of the substantive
obligation embedded in the treaty or tacit
agreement inform and shape interpretation. Consequently the
intention of the parties can only be gleaned through the
legal basis and framework of discussions and the resolutions
of the UN including the premise of article 76B. Did Foncha
negotiate transfer of sovereignty? Did he discuss
destruction of Southern Cameroons statehood and the
construction of an assimilationist structure? Were these his
intentions or at best the object and purpose of post
plebiscite discussions which never took place? Supposition
number 4 is a very hypothetical construction that even a
fluid social scientific basis would reject. If a treaty
existed that was duly signed and ratified by the competent
authorities...then it should have fulfilled the premise of
the VCLT. If that existed then there would be no basis for
the search of a tacit agreement. Every treaty negotiated and
adopted also lays the basis on how that particular treaty
would be considered binding. Each state has a
legal procedure through which it gives consent to its
international obligations. This may also depend on the
nature of the legal system(civil or common or even mixed).
So, you must have to study the legal context of each state
and have an appropriate understanding on how it gives
consent to its treaty obligations. Foncha has publicly said
he never signed any treaty(That is enough primary source
except otherwise falsified by a treaty) because non was
negotiated and formalised. We will begin discussions once a
tacit agreement is produced. Atleast if Foncha hid his, the
occupier should hurriedly produce its own to justify legal
union as against claim of occupation. Article 8 of the VCLT
answers your point 5 thus:
Article
8. SUBSEQUENT
CONFIRMATION OF AN ACT PERFORMED WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATIONAn act
relating to
the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot
 be considered under article 7 as authorized to
represent a State for that purpose is  without legal
effect unless afterwards confirmed by that
State
Point 6: You must be very
explicit how international law deals with a treaty. What is
known is that to invoke a treaty at the UN or any of its
organs, it must have fulfilled Art. 102 of the UN
Charter. 
Point 7. Based on legal
positivist theory, due process is central to the validity of
law. based on natural law theory the moral basis of the law
is critical. So either way, the absence of due process and
subsequent practice of one party to your tacit agreement
considered reproachful and in bad faith, the
foundation of such an agreement whether based on due process
or morals is seriously
questioned. Do these things make the law invalid if it
actually existed? No. but the absence of any tangible
evidence by the occupier to show the existence of such an
agreement makes it difficult for it to be
invoked. 
The other points are simply
narratives supporting your non existent
model. 
I hope Prof Anyangwe, Chief
Barister Taku and Barister Mbeseha would provide a better
rebutal. But until then, you should be reminded that the
construction of any model demands the utilisation of a
conceptual framework as the building blocks of that model.
Secondly, every occupation is illegal and cannot rob the
people of their land as long as there is no acquiescence to
the existing rule. The principle of uti possidetis also
is clear on ownership of land even after conflict. Transfer
of such ownership can only be
valid through an agreement concluded as a treaty. Deviant
legal reasoning has become another avenue through which
people show their discontent with the present approach to
our liberation. Let me advice both the legal minds and
activists who have different models. Once my friends and I
were not happy with the 'force of argument' model,
we seized the leadership at Garden Park Buea and therafter
moved to the field and built a solid force to take control
of our land. The rest is history. Once SCAPO and SCNC were
not satisfied with the Gorji HCB argument they developed a
new model and seized an appellate organ of
every domestic jusridiction. They came out with a
result(legal) and a political appeal for dialogue. So if any
one is disgruntled with the way things are, test your model
against the occupier and not against the SCNC, SCAPO,
Ambazonia or SCYL. This is the easy approach to baseless
model construction
From:
tumasangm@hotmail.com
To: ftroit@hotmail.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com; njohl42@gmail.com;
charto_us@yahoo.com; mfyembe@gmail.com; t164ngng@gmx.co.uk;
atoabechied001@hotmail.com; yabaluc@hotmail.com;
carlany2001@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:25:25 +0000




Dear All,
My attention has been recently drawn to the
fact that someone has taken an old article I wrote
long ago with the above title and reposted on Ambasbay
where I do not belong and there have been discussions going
on it. I got the mail and realised people's private
mails are also copied hence I am replying whilst copying
those private mail addresses also.
 
What I have stated on the struggle is clear. The
mistaken and wrong approach be it the marriage
certificate approach, be it the lack of union treaty without
considering the possibility of a tacit agreement, be it the
mistaken faith in UN Article 102 etc.etc. is well
known. I have built a 6 point legal model of the
struggle (and put my name on it so that in future there
should be no doubt what I said and I stand by it) and
presented after showing the flaws of the previous models.
Let someone build his own model  , tell
me what to add or deduct from my model to progress things
or have his peace. Nothing is done in secret. 
 
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the things I have said
on the struggle which I can repeat here because people
are very good at misquoting or changing what someone has
said:
 
At the beginning of the struggling, there were
many misconceptions in relation to the legal position of the
struggle. Some said La Republique du Cameroon did not have a
locus standi to sue Nigeria on Bakassi which I objected to
the position for locus standi in international law is based
on nexus and not on the merits of a case.
Some claimed La
Republique du Cameroon did not have any right in Southern
Cameroons which I again objected to and stated that even if
considered as an Occupying Power, in international law, La
Republique du
Cameroon has rights and obligations in Southern Cameroons
including entering into agreements with international
organisations such as Herakle farms although they do not
have the right to enter into treaties (with few exceptions),
and they do not have the right to do anything that will
permanently change the character of Southern Cameroons
since their occupation in international law is considered to
be only for an appointed time.Some said the
absence of a Union treaty meant there was no joining and I
objected to that position for that is only have the story. I
advised that in international law, if there is no union
treaty, a thorough check has to be done to make sure there
has not been a "tacit agreement" by which
sovereignty might have passed. Such tacit agreement will be
based on the intention of the parties, the outcome achieved
and if such outcome
was accepted by the parties.Some said if there
was even a union treaty, such treaty was not ratified by
Southern Cameroons Assembly and Foncha did not have the
powers to sign such a treaty hence it is not valid. I again
objected to such a position. I advised that in international
law, if the Treaty (if it exist) satisfied the requirements
of the Vienna Convention, it is binding whether it is
ratified by the Southern Cameroons Assembly or not and I
said that even the almighty 1913 treaty governing the
western boundaries of Southern Cameroons was not ratified by
the German government or Parliament and it is still binding.
I also said that
Foncha as head of Southern Cameroons with actual or
ostensible power to sign on behalf of Southern Cameroons, if
he should sign such
a treaty in contravention of Southern Cameroons
constitution (where perhaps the Queen in charge of external
affairs should sign), such a treaty can still be binding in
international Law.Some approached the
struggle from the point of marriage certificate, wills,
concubinage , "come we sidon" etc. and again I
objected to this approach and advised that in international
law, such marriage certificate and concubinage analogies are
not accepted as is the case in municipal law hence we must
stop basing our case on such an
approach.Some said any
purported union cannot be valid because the correct steps
were not followed, details of joining not finalised before
joining, one conference or the other not held as mandated.
Again I objected to this view and stated that in
international law, procedural impropriety is not as
important as in municipal law and restitutio in integrum
dissolving the union cannot be ordered based on procedural
impropriety. It was not ordered in the Northern Cameroons
Case, it will not be ordered in the Southern Cameroons case
hence it is not a viable appraochSome based our case
on UN Article 102 non registration and again I objected to
such an approach and showed that such an approach in
international law will not lead us to a favourable outcome
for the UN Article 102 regime is a sanction regime and not a
treaty validation regime.Some wanted to sue
the UK and I said it will be extremely difficult to cross
all the hurdles particularly Lord Roskin's "No go
areas". I tried to solve the problems by using the
Nauru Technique, although I could not solve all. I
took the case to the Solicitors who got payment for the Mau
Mau torture victims of Kenya and they declined the case for
they also concluded as I had concluded before that the
chances of nailing Britain for transgressions in Southern
Cameroons are slim.Some claim many
"Experts" of La Republique du Cameroon and
Southern Camerouns hold this or that position, trying to get
security in numbers and I advised that when Albert Einstein
formulated the General Theory of Relativity, 100 experts
prepared and signed a document that Einstern was wrong and
called it "100 Experts Against Einstein".
When he heard of them, he asked "why 100?, if I was
wrong, one Expert is enough".Some said I have
been objecting and
challenged most of the underpinnings of the legal basis of
the struggle so what will I replace it with, and that the
above views have been held for over 25 years so how come I
am the only one seeing the things when La Republique du
Cameroun "experts" and Southern Cameroon legal
"experts" have been on this issue for over 25
years and did not see all these things I are now
bringing.I said I would
rather break down the legal house we have built for the past
25 years and rebuild it on a stronger foundation than leave
a wobbling legal house and be depending on it. I said the
legal issues here involved are like a crime scene. Many
detectives from La Republique du Cameroon and Southern
Cameroons have been on the scene, saw some clues, but missed
some very important vital clues also. I came along after 25
years and was perhaps lucky to see these clues they missed.
Someone might in future come after me and see somethings I
might have missed also. That is how life works. My
Engineering background before law, and years of work doing
construction and oil and gas claims delayclaims,  where
you have to look for clues in a forensic manner in tonnes of
documents has helped me to see things that others miss not
because I am more brilliant than
them. The above is a
summary of what has happened. We cannot change history. We
have to learn to adapt. Nelson Mandela was talking of
nationalisation, and breaking the big corporations in
Southern Africa, but he realised this is economic suicide
and adapted and caught the Communist party ally and COSATU
and others by surprise. The party of Steve Biko of
"one settler one bullet" could not
adapt and went into extinction. The communist party after
the killing of Chris Hani is dead. Those who cannot
adapt even when the plethora of evidence that the
former held legal views are not sustainable are the problem.
Some said the flaws of the position should be hidden
from the people and if stated publicly it is self
serving. If true so what?. Does that cancel the fact that
the people have been educated instead of being fed
unsustainable legal tales?. There are journalists who fought
for the people in Cameroon and in the process selved
themselves by using the CRTV jounalism springboard and are
now in World Bank, UN, Mo Foundation etc. Does it
cancel the good work they did as journalist back in
Cameroon whilst serving the people and self serving at the
same time if that is what they did?. Those there who did not
use their approach are still there crying
fowl. 
You can love me or loath
me but the analysis and legal model I have developed is
what stands on the Southern Cameroons struggle today despite
what some misguided "experts" from La Republique
du Cameroun might have said that there is no Union because
there is no "union document" whilst they failed
woefully to consider the intentions of the parties at the
time of the de facto union, if the intentions were realised
and if the parties accepted the outcome which could form a
tacit agreement. I believe there was no Union ONLY AFTER
CONSIDERING BOTH WINGS OF THE PROBLEM.
 
I have brought in and considered dimensions in the
struggle that no one thought about for the past 25 years. It
took many by surprise, some tried to fight it but the
evidence and source of the evidence I brought to support my
points made them abandon the attempt to continue arguing. My
legal model is in public, let "experts" of la
Republique or Southern Cameroons dismantle
the model or bring an alternative one. Until that is done,
my model is the legal model for the struggle at least for
now until in future someone might bring something I missed
to add or subtract on the model.
 
Since this discussion is based on an old mail
someone reposted, this is my last mail on it. If someone has
sometime to contribute on the weaknesses of the old model
that has been perpetuated for the past 25 years, or possible
weakness of my developed model, then let him go ahead and
open a new topic which is fresh, and if not, then let him
have a nice day.
 
Those who can adapt and move on will move on. Those
who stagnate and keep trying to beat a dead legal horse will
do that. The New legal Model is there. Some who feel
slighted can resist. It is their prerogative. Some will take
what is good in it, drop what they feel is bad in it and
move
on.
 
Regards
 
Tumasang
 

 Date:
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:20:04 -0700
From: ftroit@hotmail.com
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com; njohl42@gmail.com;
charto_us@yahoo.com; mfyembe@gmail.com; t164ngng@gmx.co.uk;
tumasangm@hotmail.com; atoabechied001@hotmail.com;
yabaluc@hotmail.com; carlany2001@yahoo.com;
carlany2001@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons

Truth of the matter is that we're no
longer in the 1950s or 1960s when Southern Cameroons had
just a handful of knowledgeable individuals or when we
couldn't come up with bright minds or even gather a pool
of our own lawyers to make sure Foncha and co were not
signing our life away.

It's 2014 and one no
longer needs the prefixes suffixes before or after his/her
name to be able to speak sensibly on an issue. Nowadays,
people can teach themselves a subject without necessary
attending a formal course for it. While not necessarily
endorsing what this man is saying, but to dismiss his voice
in favor of another simply because the other possesses all
sorts of degrees is not the Southern Cameroonian way. At
least, not in 2014.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:39:12 PM UTC-4,
carla...@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, Mola is correct. This gentleman should not be dignified
with a response. Let us stay focused and not be diverted by
this attention-seeking email he keeps recycling
periodically.

Prof
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email
find you!From: Njoh Litumbe <njohl...@ymail.com>
Sender: njo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:05:26
+0100To: <amba...@googlegroups.com>Cc:
Chief Charles A.Taku<char...@yahoo.com>; Martin Yembe<mfy...@gmail.com>; Ngwang Gumne<t164...@gmx.co.uk>; Tumasang
Martin<tuma...@hotmail.com>;
Carlson Anyangwe<carla...@yahoo.com
>; Chief Fonkem<atoabec...@hotmail.
com>; Ayaba Cho Lucas SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
INDEPENDENCE<yab...@hotmail.
com>Subject: Re: Fwd: Quo Vadis
Southern Cameroons
Hello Denis
For my part, I would not wish to spend
time arguing with the likes  of the most learned Dr
Tumasang, with more
degrees after his name than I could count on my fingers and
toes.
What is needed is practical steps for
Southern Cameroonians to exercise their fundamental and
inalienable right of self-determination, but not
fireside pipe-smoking, whisky laden outbursts.  For
such people, St Paul put it this way:  "Too
much learning doth make thee mad!"
 
Let us stay focused and ignore frivolous
diversions, no matter from whom.
Mola
On Tue, Sep 23,
2014 at 6:47 AM, 'Atemkeng Denis' via ambasbay <amba...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Dear Chief,
Even
if I were a complete illiterate in law, I would, from mere
common sense, imagine that the kinds of actions necessary to
pass sovereignty and territory, and thus bind a people, must
be very different from the kinds of actions necessary to
bind individuals. Look at land law in domestic jurisdictions
and see what is required to
convey land. What then must it be in
international law when it comes to passing sovereignty and
territory? It is not for nothing that Article 102 of the UN
Charter exists. I published the rules governing the
application of this article, in the believe that those who
are making empty propaganda about tacit consent and the
like, may see for themselves. But they continue the
confusion. According to them, sovereignty can pass without a
union treaty and without compliance with UN rules. They
argue that their alleged union was dissolved only in 1984,
by change of name. So if La Republique were simply to change
the name of the two countries back to United Republic, would
that resolve the conflict? We have also repeatedly made it
clear to them that there was simply no one in the Southern
Cameroons government who had the  competence to pass
sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons to another state,
because international relations of the Southern Cameroons
was reserved to Her Majesty's
government. They will not hear! Any supposed person giving
so-called tacit consent must be competent, by law, to do so,
besides the fact that such notions fall far below the
threshold of actions necessary to pass sovereignty and
territory.

Why
should we keep wasting our time, when the real matter
underlying the pretended arguments may not be reason at all?
I wish I were a lawyer, but I am not. Let our experts invent
their own laws, or in their own courts, pass the kind of
judgment they like on our case. Time will
tell.Atemnkeng.


On Monday, September 22, 2014 6:32 PM, Martin
Yembe <mfy...@gmail.com> wrote:


See???

On 9/22/14,
'Chief Charles A.Taku' via ambasbay
<amba...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Denis
> Thanks for your contribution. I
have been in court rooms and participated in
> cases. I know how wining briefs are
written. Indeed I have written and
>
presented such briefs and prevailed. Briefs that meet
international
> standards even to be
admissible must pass established thresholds. I have
> decided not to participate in this
discussion on public fora because
>
reasonable persons expect us to argue their case elsewhere
where they can
> find a redress. A lawyer
frames his case to meet the threshold established
> by a competent adjudicatory
>  before which he has brought the
matter. He does not speculate.
>
Some of us have opted to continue to present our case the
best we can where
> it matters. We will
not be distracted in this resolve.
>
Finally even a Michael West definition of treaty emphasis on
its written
> character. There are forms
of acquisition of territory one of which Ahidjo
> promised not to exercise against us. That
is annexation. It sad for anyone
> to
look at that and infer a treaty. It also preposterous for
any one to
> speculate a union treaty
which does not comply to the law of treaties. After
> the referendum,Cremia and Russia needed a
treaty to constitute a union. The
> mere
presence of Russian soldiers on the territory and political
speeches
> alone were not enough to infer
a union treaty where the law requires that a
> treaty must be in written
form.
> The acts and conduct of the
parties are relevant. This why an assertion of
> the right of self determination is a
binding right affirm by the UN Charter
>
as well as the regulation of treaties under the UN
system.
> --------------------------
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 4:36 AM EDT Atemkeng
Denis wrote:
>
>>Dear Prof et Al,
>>
>>In the absence
of an international court to decide on the Southern
>> Cameroons' case, everybody seems
to be at liberty to invent their own
>> "international" laws on the
matter, and at the same time to discredit all
>> other positions. Of course, no
jurisprudence or any provision of any law
>> anywhere is available to prove
sovereignty passing from A to B
without a
>> union treaty and without
compliance with UN Charter. The idea that the UN
>> endorsed the results of the plebiscite
is quoted as sufficient authority
>>
for every fraud to stand. How can we prove this? All
so-called experts
>> depend on is
their ability to make the loudest noise. Concepts of
domestic
>> and civil law are imported
into self-determination concepts at will!!!!
>> After all, the number of degrees we
have is supposed to make everyone
>>
believe in our position. In all this, we may not discount
the fact that
>> secret agendas and
self promotion may be lurking underneath. So we should
>> stop wasting our time.
>  Anyone
>> who
believes that they have a better case should wait for the
day a
court
>> will be found to tell us the
law. No arguments can resolve the conflict of
>> ideas at this stage. After all, if one
were to hire two lawyers for his
>>
case, they may not agree on what arguments to adduce. What
baffles me the
>> most is why these
experts don't go straight and offer their services to
La
>> Republique, or is that what they
are doing by all this confusion? Instead,
>> they continue to use every possible
and impossible means to demobilize the
>> people they say they are working for!
You see, after 307 years, Scotland
>>
has exercised its right to self-determination. Why are we
acting in the
>> Southern Cameroons
case as if nature will work different because it is the
>> Southern Cameroons? The future is that
of
freedom; I can predict to you
>> that
no matter what the UN, AU and anyone can do, ever more
sovereign
>> states will continue to
emerge. There's nothing anyone can do about that!
>> Perhaps in
>>
our life time, the two arguments will prove themselves.
>>
>>Atemnkeng.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Monday,
September 22, 2014 10:13 AM, 'Samuel Laikenjoh' via
ambasbay
>> <amba...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Martin , this
is a very negative approach to the struggle albeit the
>> scholarly arguments you have put
forth. What you have identified as the
>> weaknesses of the forebears of the
struggle should not be described as
>>
hurting peoples' egos for every individual including you
will feel hurt if
>> someone tramples
on your ego. What you are suggesting below is not new
>> because SCARM had visited the 1972
situation and even went further to
>>
state that the prelude to the dissolution was the
dissolution of political
>> parties
and the formation of a one party state in 1966. We equaly
came to
>> the conclusion that la
republique had seceeded from the Union and in our
>> numerous write-ups that Ahidjo had
breached the solemn promise he gave the
>> UN that he will not annex the Southern
Cameroons........ We also took
>>
advantage of the Fon's
position in 1984 and marshalled it on with the Fon
>> collaborating at a time that we were
trying to bring all on board by
>>
addressing the grievances of
>>our
brothers of the Southern Zone thus when we challenged the
position of
>> the Fon proclaiming
himself as the Head of state of Ambazonia  things
>> became sour with him. We continued to
fight on and then came the
>>
opportunity we were looking for to get our intellectual
classes on board.
>> The SCNC was born
of the tripatite talks of La rep. du Cameroun and we
>> gave our  legalists the
opportunity to head our struggle but when we saw
>> them straying into the variuos forms
of wildernesses you have aptly
>>
described below we broke ranks and declared the zero option
which
>> embarrassed many of them.
The zero per our thinking was the acceptance of
>> the secession of la rep. from the
union and us reviving our independence
>> that was lying in abbeyance. This I
believe is in line with what you have
>> written and that is why we in SCARM
believe that we have exhausted all the
>> possible avenues and now think we
should move further to extremities. You
>> know ofcourse what I mean. Our
>>principle is to work with all groups
that are aspiring to achieve our
>>
freedom from the bondage of la rep du cameroun. In every
struggle we can
>> always find Trojan
Horses and most of them exist because their egos were
>> hurt at one point or the other hence
the several versions of the SCNC.
>>
Whither then the Southern Cameroons? Brother at one time
you embarked on
>> raising funds for
the struggle. What happened with that? The battles
>> fought on this forum are not worth the
trouble if we cannot fund the
>>
struggle proper. Am at home and understand how our people
feel when any of
>> you from out
there  come here and give them false info as to what
you are
>> doing for the cause they
get elated and believe freedom is here tomorrow
>> main while you are lieing through your
teeth. The Fon and a few others
>>
have been consistent while others have been dancing waltz
all the way
>> through. Lets all
change our attitude of negativity and try to bring all
>> on board and our freedom shall be
>>won without much ado.
>>Visha Fai
>>
>>Subject: Fwd: Quo Vadis Southern
Cameroons
>>To: "FREE
Ambazonians" <FREE_Amb...@yahoogroups. com>,
"SCNC North
>> America"
<scncnort...@
googlegroups.com>, "Ambazonian
>> emancipationists" <amba...@googlegroups.com>
>>Date: Friday, 19 September, 2014,
12:43
>>
>>
>>
>>Sent from
my
>>iPhone
>>Begin
forwarded
>>message:
>>
>>From: Martin
Tumasang <tuma...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: February 25, 2014 at 1:51:36
AM
>>EST
>>To:
"cameroon...@
yahoogroups.com"
>><cameroon...@
yahoogroups.com>,
>>"amba...@googlegroups.com"
>><amba...@googlegroups.com>
>>Cc: "led...@yahoo.com"
>><led...@yahoo.com>,
>>"juliu...@yahoo.com"
>><juliu...@yahoo.com>,
>>"ivoe...@hotmail.com"
>><ivoe...@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Quo
Vadis Southern
>>Cameroons
>>Reply-To: amba...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>#yiv6313106133
#yiv6313106133 --
>>.yiv6313106133hmmessage P
>>{
>>margin:0px;padding:0px;}
>>#yiv6313106133
body.yiv6313106133hmmessage
>>{
>>font-size:12pt;font-family:
Calibri;}
>>#yiv6313106133
>>Dear All,
>>The
question one
>>will ask is where are
you going southern Cameroons?. When
>>something has been going on for 25 odd
years and hits a
>>brick wall and you
try to get a paradigm
shift so that
>>progress can be
obtained on a sound footing, you set
>>resistance:
>>
>>1) From
>>people
who have invested decades on a position that is now
>>exposed as shaky.
>>2) From purported Experts
>>who have fooled so many people for so
long and they realise
>>they cannot
fool all the people all the time. La Republique
>>du Cameroun experts not excluded. Munzu
asked to listen to
>>these Experts.
>>3) From those who championed
>>a direction or set of arguments that
are now
>>unsustainable.
>>4) From those who thought
>>they had a monopoly of knowledge in an
area and they realise
>>to their
chagrin that their knowledge was not as good as
>>they thought.
>>5) From those whose egos
>>cannot let them concede that they made
mistakes, adjust and
>>move on.
>>6) From those who realise that
>>they cannot marshall any arguments to
counter the paradigm
>>shift hence
they claim that exposing the weakness of their
>>position is based on show boating.
>>7) From
>>people
who used to speak on specifics but now they
>>have started speaking on
generalities.
>>8)
> >From people who are just dismayed and
cannot believe that
>>their purported
leaders or experts could have led them this
>>long on this
wrong path without realising the weakness
>>inherent in it.
>>
>>The truth
>>has a way of being stubborn whether
said in boasting or in
>>humility, in
darkness or in light. We can write a thousand
>>books and bit about the bush about it
but it does not go
>>away. The truth
on this joining or sovereignty issue
>>includes the following:
>>
>>1) The
concubinage, "come we sidon",
>>marriage certificate arguments already
discredited by myself
>>and still used
in the symposium in Buea has no place in
>>international law.
>>2) The lack of a union
>>treaty does not mean sovereignty cannot
pass from A to B
>>3) The
non ratification by a Parliament or
>>Assembly does not mean sovereignty
cannot pass from A to
>>B.
>>4) The non registration of a union
(if
>>there was one) cannot invalidate
the union. It remains
>>binding on the
parties.
>>5) Violations of the
>>joining process have been consummated
and restitutio in
>>integrum cannot
now be ordered based on such violations.
>>6) The UN noting and accepting the
plebiscite
>>results must have some
legal effect.
>>7) On
>>the joining issue as it stands, the
most viable approach is
>>to claim
that the intentions of the parties were spelt out
>>in the pre-plebiscite agreement, that
such intentions were
>>never realised,
and that Southern Cameroons protested
>>immediately after the purported de
facto joining and has
>>continued
protesting since then. Intentions whether express
>>or implied of the two parties to the
purported joining and
>>their
intentions only is what matters.
>>8)
>>The
alternative argument is that even if there was a joining
>>(which is strenuously denied), such
joining has been
>>dissolved by La
Republique du Cameroon in 1972 and finally
>>consummated in 1984.
>>9) A further
>>alternative argument is that Ahidjo
gave a unilateral
>>binding
international covenant in the General Assembly of
>>the UN to the International Community
in
rem not to annex
>>Southern Cameroons
and that covenant has been breached
>>considering our present situation where
we do not have even
>>a modicum of
self government.
>>
>>Fon Dinka looked at this "no
>>union treaty-non ratification-non UN
102 registration
>>model" and
decided that it was not the
>>most
viable approach and instead zerored into Restoration
>>Law 84/1 that dissolved the de facto
union. I looked at it
>>also and said
with good authority that it is not viable and
>>that we should change focus totally and
zero in
>>"the intention of the
parties, such
>>intention not
realised, and one party protesting immediately
>>and since, secondly that
even if there was a union it has
>>been dissolved using 1972/84, and that
there was a binding
>>covenant given
by Ahidjo not to annex Southern Cameroons and
>>that covenant has been breached
considering our present
>>situation". Munzu looked at the
"no
>>union treaty-non
ratification-non UN 102 registration
>>model" and believe it is not
viable and that the
>>joining cannot
be revisited by the UN which I disagree with
>>him on the revisting issue only.
>>
>>The choice is
that of Southern Cameroons. We
>>either accept the weakness in our
former position, adjust
>>and move on,
or we let the egos of some who know that the
>>previous position is unsustainable but
keep hoping
that the
>>issue will go away slow us
down.
>>
>>The
people should be proud of their Experts but
>>this pride should not blind them from
seeing when the
>>experts make
mistakes. The Experts should accept also when
>>all the evidence shows that they made
mistakes and not try
>>to justify the
unjustifiable, otherwise, their egos will
>>turn into a major problem blocking
Southern Cameroons from
>>moving
forward. We are all fallible as humans. We can spend
>>the next few dacades crafting
unsustainable arguments to
>>justify
the former positions, claim that they appear wrong
>>because things are being looked at in
isolation, claim that
>>there is new
evidence to support the old
position, even
>>preposteriously
claim that sovereignty cannot pass from A
>>to B based on a tacit agreement because
we do not like
>>that fact not that it
is not possible in international law.
>>We can argue as much as we want, defend
entrenched weak
>>positions as we like
but as stated above, the truth is very
>>stubborn. It will keep looking at us in
the face. The
>>earlier we move on the
better for all.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Tumasang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>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+unsub...@
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+unsub...@ googlegroups.com.
>>
>>For more
options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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+unsub...@ googlegroups.com.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.
>
>
--
> 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+unsub...@
googlegroups.com.
> For more options,
visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.
>

--
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+unsub...@
googlegroups.com.
For more options,
visit
https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.








--

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+u...@
googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.











--

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.






--

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.


--
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.