OH PEOPLE!!!!! Our best model is in www.ambazonia.org, DINKA or NO DINKA . Stop reinventing the wheel and ACT.
JA
-- JA
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Ayaba Cho Lucas SOUTHERN CAMEROONS INDEPENDENCE <yabaluc@hotmail.com> wrote:
--Dear Chief and Prof,This is the legacy you people have built. It has not been disputed by the occupier. It is entrenched in our reasoning and informs our political approaches to our eventual liberation. It also has shaped the legal reasoning and will continue to inform subsequent approaches until a superior reasoning based on strengthening this approach and strengthening our position rather that questioning its integrity on a public platform is put in place. Rest assured that we are awake 24/7 and as we have done in the past, we will gradually be unveiling serious work and endeavours to our people. Until such a moment you people MUST remain the custodian of the validity of our history as we see it and the vanguard of the legal foundation of our struggle. This ship sinks with all of you. The narrative of the occupier is gradually being consigned to the dustbin of history. The occupation shall only henceforth be defended on another reasoning. This reasoning is gradually being constructed. It is that of emotions and fear. Dr. Susungi is assembling reasons why a 43000 sq mile territory is unsustainable and continuous enslavement the only viable option to our survival. He is also constructing a currency narrative to argue against our independence. They all lost the TREATY OF UNION argument and are peddling circumstantial tacit hidden and supposed agreements that MUST be binding. Who does these arguments serve? Our people or its brutal occupier? Either way the land is ours and acquisition by force justification lays bare an irredentist approach that is dead on critical inquiry.SG
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:57:34 -0700
From: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons
To: tumasangm@hotmail.com; atakyen2002@yahoo.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com; ftroit@hotmail.com
CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com; njohl42@gmail.com; mfyembe@gmail.com; t164ngng@gmx.co.uk; atoabechied001@hotmail.com; carlany2001@yahoo.comSG,For the purposes of completeness, permit me to cut and paste the following posting with along with the opinio juris supporting the cut and pasted posting. See the pdf document attached.The genesis of the flipflop that is so obvious in these postings started with an affirmation that a union treaty existed between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroon. Thereafter, there was no union treaty between La Republique and Southern Cameroons. In the last few months, a new " model" has been introduced asserting that a binding treaty of union may be inferred based on the nature of the relations between La Republique du Cameroon and the Southern Cameroons capable to transferring sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun. Left unexplained are the reasons for the flipflop.In the posting below, we were told in very firm language that occupation must never be conflated with sovereignty and that Britain could never have transferred sovereignty to La Republique.Also find forwarded the Geneva Convention on the Law of Treaties and an opinio juris on the interpretation of treaties.Tumasang MartinToFeb 13, 2013Dear Louis,
it takes a lot of enough to research, look for material that deals conclusively with a point and then attach it for all to see. The point is conclusively dealt with i.e. the issue of "Sovereignty in abeyance for trust territories" during the UN Mandate period and the fact that it could not be transferred by 3rd parties be they contiguous states, UN or UK.
Occupation and control is different from Sovereignty. An occupying power like La Republique du Cameroun can have control and/or administration as an occupying power but it does not have sovereignty of the occupied territory. I have explained this before and it is a basic fact in International Occupation Law. The occupiers ability to enter International Binding treaties on behalf of the territory is limited because of lack of Sovereignty.
The above paper clearly explains the issue of "Sovereignty in Abeyance" in simple terms hence there is nothing for me to add. Even after reading the attached paper, someone continues to say sovereignty was passed by Britain to La Republique to Cameroun, or that control/administration of a territory in law is the same as having sovereignty of the territory, then I think we are out to make mischief. This is particularly true for people whose writings at various times show they are intelligent. The issue is more of mischief making and the enjoyment that goes with it. Make people hit their heads left and right when you know the truth and the correct answer.
Once research is done and a well written and referenced paper like the attached is presented on an issue, we must concede the point and move on. We cannot win on all points. After reading the attached paper if one still continues to argue, then I think a second opinion of another expert should be sought. I cannot comment further on the issue since there is nothing to add. Anyone still not satisfied with the paper on the issue of "Suspended sovereignty or sovereignty in abeyance for trust territories" should get a second opinion. This issue has been pronounced on by the ICJ as per the case of South West Africa or Namibia.
I conclude on this topic. I have re-attached the scholarly paper on the issue for re-reading if need be.
Regards
Tumasang Esq
From: tumasangm@hotmail.com
To: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: PRELUDE TO THE DEMISE OF FEDERATION: No Sovereignty was handed over
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:07:39 +0000Hi Louis,
whilst I do not want to be part of this discussion because of its tone, it suffice to state that during the mandate period, "sovereignty was in abeyance or suspended" so it was not transferred by UK to Ahidjo as some without being lettered in the subject area might think or wish. Some control or administration of Southern Cameroons might have passed from one coloniser to another but not sovereignty that attaches itself to the territory and was in abeyance or suspended during the mandate period. Only the people of Southern Cameroons can do what we like with the sovereignty of the territory and we have not handed it over to anyone. There is no UNION TREATY OR TRANSFER TREATY OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENTS THAT WE HAVE SIGNED. Second or third parties can claim or purport what they want.
Attached is an article for those who want to educate themselves on the issue. It will help a bit but if further help on the issue is needed, then anyone can contact me privatelyOn Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:21 PM, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
Prof,
I had finished with this topic but since you are an old hand in this struggling before tactically going quiet, I can out of respect comment on your mail. The others I will just ignore.
I am not bashing everything else. Like a surgeon, I am cutting the cancer which is metastasizing in the legal struggle and keeping the good parts. I said and I repeat that others went through the crime scene and found many clues but they missed also many important clues. I came after 25 years and was lucky to find some of these important clues they missed. I am not reinventing the wheel. I built on what others did before me, corrected the obvious legal mistakes they made and moved on.
Prof, the issue is one of ego and nothing else. As an example, for 25 years our lawyers out of ignorance or negligence allowed a respectable and loved personality like Mola Litumba to build this struggle on marriage certificate, concubinage etc. Such analogies, models etc have no place in international law and I have shown it beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of him being angry with his legal advisors and the lawyers surrounding him for failing to discover that international law cannot accept such reasoning, he instead turns round and is angry with me for pointing out that such frolicking leads to nowhere. Can Mola Litumbe before man and the God he serves still claim that my legal analysis on his model is wrong?. If I am right should he not be praising me for seeing what for 25 years others did not see?.
I have cut out the UN Article 102 argument from the legal struggle, the procedural impropriety argument from the legal struggle, the Southern Cameroon non ratification of any union from the struggle, the Foncha not being competent from the struggle etc. etc. These various things are not sustainable in international law.
In terms of building, I have taken the issue of lack of Union treaty and said this is not conclusive and cannot stand by itself to show a joining or not. I have introduced the concept of tacit agreement into the struggle where intentions of the parties are considered, if the intentions were achieved and if the parties accepted the outcome.
Prof, you are not a legal person but I can tell you that I am the first person in Cameroon and perhaps in the world who looked at our sovereignty issue in terms of a possible tacit agreement that can be binding in international law. I would again tell you that in international law, when ever two entities come together and there is an issue of the passage of sovereignty, the first question is where is the union treaty and if none, the next is what was the intentions of the parties, were the intentions achieved, and did the parties accept the outcome. I again tell you that any legal person in this world who looks at our joining issue only on absence of a Union Treaty has failed Period. Out of 100 marks, he is working on 50% and not even likely to get all 50% so he has technically failed. Our lawyers for the past 25 years failed on the key joining issue which is the centre of our struggle. They missed half of the story. This is the history of our struggle and we cannot change it.
In terms of building again, I did not end with the introduction of the tacit agreement dimension in the legal struggle, I am the only one in Cameroon that realised and introduced the concept of GOOD FAITH in the struggle and that La Republique is not bound to come to an agreement with us on the joining issue, but since the UN ordered that the terms of the joining be agreed, it is bound to negotiate with us in good faith and failure to do that, is actionable in international law. I am the one who introduced the concept of actionable failure to negotiate in good faith in this struggle. A NEW CLAIM WE COULD MOUNT AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
In terms of building again. We mentioned before that Ahidjo promised at the UN not to annex Southern Cameroons. I took this and built on it and claim it is an actionable standalone claim against la Republique du Cameroon since such a statement is a unilateral binding declaration. He never said he will not annex Southern Cameroon unless they agree in some referendum where non Southern Cameroons vote, or that he will dismantle all the Southern Cameroonian structures after 10 years and annex them. This binding nature of Ahidjo's statement and the actionable nature of it was brought into the struggle by me. No Southern Cameroonian before me had done that despite the fact that there is no modicum of self governance in Southern Cameroons. The issue was mentioned in Banjul but I decided to build on it and make it a stand alone claim.
Again in terms of building, I looked at the nature of the joining and found that it was a synallagmatic agreement where if one party used restoration law 84/1 to stop delivering the union, the other party can also declare its independence. This is similar to what Fon Ndinka is saying but a built on it to put it in a way that international way might recognise and accept. I introduced the concept of exceptio inadempleti contratus in the struggle as an alternative argument.
In cosmology, they talk of GUT i.e. a Grand Unified Theory or the theory of everything that explains everything in the universe. I was after a GUT on the Southern Cameroon case. A LEGAL MODEL THAT CAPTURES ALL THE CLAIMS WE HAVE AGAINST LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. I have developed a Grand Unified theory that unified those who said there was no union and those who said there was a union but it got dissolved in 1984 in one Grand unified model made up of 6 alternatives.
If you look at my 6 point model it states with the KEY issue as follows:
That there is no union with La Republique because there is no Union Treaty, and the Intentions of the parties were spelt out in the pre-plebiscite Agreement, such intentions were never achieved (even if they were, it was just a pretention that was dissolved in 10 years , a short time in international law), and Southern Cameroons never accepted the outcome of any purported union, protested then and has continued to protest till date.
The rest of the model are alternatives about lack of good faith, nature of any agreement, secession in 1972 which was finally consummated in 1984, us being a people like Quebec and Scotland with a right to self determination, exercisable as many times as possible, including a right not to associate in any form with la Republique du Cameroon.
The model is a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) because it covers all our claims in international law against La Republique du Cameroon on our sovereignty issue in the form of alternatives and further alternatives, and unifies all camps of the struggle i.e. the non joining and joining camps in one Grand Unified Model.
I do not think people have sat down to look at the 6 point model . It covers all the claims we have against La Republique du Cameroon in General International Law. The only thing I could have added were treaty claims that for example La Republique du Cameroon has breached international treaties it signed in relation to the people of Southern Cameroons such as the ACHPR treaty it signed but I intentionally kept that out of the model because of the adverse outcome we generally had from banjul.
A useful exercise is for someone to show how the 6 points are wrong in international law, or to show what can be added e.g. I just mentioned some treaty based claims that La Republique du Cameroun has breached treaties it signed in relation to the people of Southern Cameroons. We can compile relevant treaties, see how La Republique du Cameroun has breached them in relation to Southern Cameroons and add if need be.
Summary
The 6 point Model of the Legal Struggle of Southern Cameroons is a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). If anyone believes any of the points are wrong in international law, let him come up and point it and say why. No need talking in generalities. If someone thinks there is any hold in international law against La Republique du Cameroun that I have missed, let him come up and let it be point no 7.
If no one can add or subtract on the Model based on International Law, then it stands for the moment as the ONLY SUBSISTING LEGAL MODEL OF THE STRUGGLE. There is no need adding claims that international law cannot be justify.
Regards
Tumasang
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:47:15 -0700
> From: atakyen2002@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Quo Vadis Southern Cameroons
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com; tumasangm@hotmail.com; ftroit@hotmail.com
> CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com; njohl42@gmail.com; charto_us@yahoo.com; mfyembe@gmail.com; t164ngng@gmx.co.uk; atoabechied001@hotmail.com; carlany2001@yahoo.com
>
> 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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment