Chief Charles Taku: "...anything other than a regain of sovereignty in conformity with international law is simply unacceptable..."
Excerpt of Interview by Francis Ngwa:
First Published in the Uniting Cameroonians in the UK blog
Chief Barrister Charles Taku is Defense Counsel at the International Criminal Court ICC in the Hague, Lead Defense Counsel at the UN court in Arusha, Tanzania and is one of the lead counsels for the UN special court for Sierra Leone.
He has also been at the forefront in the fight for a freer Southern Cameroons. Not surprisingly, he has been involved with some of the multiple cases of killings and torture brought against LRC in its attempts to suppress the drive to get an independent Southern Cameroons.
President Paul Biya, like all former leaders, does not want to face court charges after his exceptionally long period as president ends as it will one day happen. That is why his supporters engineered a constitutional change to protect him from future prosecutions.
This according to Barrister Charles Taku is not good enough according to international law and Mr Biya, like former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosovic, might find himself answering questions in an international tribunal for his exactions against Southern Cameroonians.
So does Southern Cameroons want a separate state or want to be equal partners in a federated Cameroon, can one have the Cameroon government and Mr Biya facing any international court cases for human rights violations and why are southern Cameroonians not as militant as Black South Africans in their fight for equality?
Francis Ngwa put the questions:
Q What are the legal basis for the complaints of English speaking people in Cameroon? Do they need a federal state or an independent country to resolve the problem?
A: In answer to your question, permit me to correct one misconception implicit in it. There is no such thing as "English speaking people in Cameroon". I presume your question is directed at the legal basis for the restoration of the Sovereignty of the Southern Cameroons- Ambazonia over her territory.
With that caveat, permit me to state clearly that it is not contested that Southern Cameroons is a state recognized as such in International Law. The Southern Cameroons fulfilled the legal criteria of Statehood spelt out in the 1932 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States.
Article 1 of the said Convention states:
"The State as a person of International Law should possess the following qualifications:
a) a permanent population.
b) A defined territory.
c) Government.
d) Capacity to enter into relations with other states.
That the Southern Cameroons possessed these qualifications is no longer subject of reasonable controversy, regard had to be made to the fact that the UN through its Resolutions affirmed her exercise of the right of self determination through a well conceived procedure with full UN participation, that was to commence with a UN organized Plebiscite and ending with an Internationally recognized union treaty with La Republique du Cameroun.
That process, we all know, was aborted and so no treaty worthy of recognition and enforcement pursuant to articles 102 and 103 of the UN Charter exists between Southern Cameroons and La Republique Du Cameroon.
It is therefore futile for anyone to invoke alleged historical or political arguments to justify the existence of any union between the two, without first ascertaining whether the UN-laid down basis for the existence of a legally binding treaty was executed or faithfully implemented pursuant to the Charter responsibilities of the all the parties involved.
In conflating the notions of Sovereignty and that of Statehood to justify its annexation of the Southern Cameroons-Ambazonia, La Republique Du Cameroun is oblivious of the fact that Southern Cameroons as a Legal Order, prior to the annexation of her territory, had her own executive and legislative organs, conducted foreign relations through her own organs, had her own system of courts and legal system, had her own nationality laws, and above all had her own constitution.
Her loss of the decision making over these matters due to the overbearing foreign control through military, economic and political blackmail and downright colonial criminality do not affect her statehood status in International Law. Similarly, Iraqi exercise of sovereignty over Kuwait, American exercise of sovereignty over Iraq, Allied exercise of sovereignty over Germany after the Second World War or Soviet exercise of Sovereignty over the Soviet Republics did not ipso jure lead to a loss of the statehood of the occupied states in International Law.
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights only recently reaffirmed that Southern Cameroons constitute a people recognized as such under the Charter. That can only be construed within the context of the distinctive statehood of Southern Cameroons since the constitutive tribes of La Republique do not have any of the qualifying attributes of a state defined in the Montevideo Convention.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that had La Republique du Cameroun as an occupying force not invoked the status of Southern Cameroons in International Law as well as the treaties that defined her International Boundaries, and all other acts that accord with the Montevideo Convention, the case she initiated against Nigeria would have been dismissed as a matter of law and fact.
To this extent, the exercise of sovereignty over that case, culminating in the Greentree agreement in which both Nigeria and La Republique undertook to withdraw their forces to their respective boundaries at Independence as the leadership of Ambazonia has correctly argued, is but a logical conclusion of an exercise of sovereignty which an occupying power merely undertook for the benefit of the State of Southern Cameroons- Ambazonia as their pleading and evidence tendered at trial reasonably suggests. In this regard, there is no other reasonable conclusion or inference to draw from the totality of the proceedings and its outcome.To that end, therefore, the continuous occupation of the territory of the Southern Cameroons by La Republique Du Cameroun is manifestly illegal, untenable and unacceptable.
Coming to the next arm of your question whether Southern Cameroons need a federation or independence to resolve the problem, I will defer in part to the preceding answer. I wish however to emphasize that the Southern Cameroons overwhelmingly voted for independence in a UN supervised plebiscite in 1961 and was required thereafter to exercise her right of self determination by negotiating and defining with UN and British Government's participation of a union treaty with La Republique du Cameroun.
Note must be taken of the fact that the British Government's participation was in respect of her UN Charter obligation and not in any other capacity. To the extent that the said Charter responsibility was never effected and has never occurred, there is no union between La Republique Du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons.
Assuming for the purpose of argument only, one were to say that Southern Cameroons was never independent as the spokesman of La Republique Isa Tchiroma stated lately, that conflation of the notion of independence and Statehood would reasonably be construed as ignorance of the state of international law on the subject.
Ian Bronwlie and Jose' E. Alvarez, Leading authorities on International Law have stated that it is inappropriate to confuse independence as an aspect of statehood, because several factors may explain a loss of independence and / or sovereignty which may not necessarily lead to a loss of statehood. Brownlie emphasizes that "a common source of confusion lies in the fact that "sovereignty may be used to describe the condition where a state has not exercised its own privileges, and immunities in respect of other states. In this sense, a state which has consented to another state managing its foreign relations, or which has granted extensive extra-territorial rights to another state, is not "sovereign". If this or similar content is given to "sovereignty", and the same ideogram is used as a criteria of statehood, then the incidents of statehood and legal personality are once again confused with their existence".
For the above reason, it is submitted that neither the statehood nor the independence of the Southern Cameroons are in question. What is at stake is the exercise of sovereignty that both confer on the State of Southern Cameroons. It is this stolen sovereignty that we are on course to recovering. That in essence is what we call the Southern Cameroons problem.
With the suggestion that a federation may solve the problem, I may venture to state that the suggestion has been overtaken by events. These are evident in the acts and conduct of La Republique Du Cameroun that rendered the fulfillment of UN Charter responsibility on the Southern Cameroons problem impossible.
First, the UN Resolutions required that the exercise of the rights of self determination of the people of Southern Cameroons be inviolable and sacrosanct. Neither Foncha nor Ahidjo nor any other person however so called could alienate those rights upon himself.
In addition to the none fulfillment of the UN Charter responsibilities by the UN and Great Britain as stated above, all acts undertaken by these individuals or who so ever at Foumban where a purported Federal Constitution was allegedly conceived adopted and promulgated by Ahidjo without the sanction of the Southerns Cameroons through her House of Assembly or by referendum was null and void ab initio and without an legal effect whatsoever.
Even if the Federal Constitution that came out of that process was legitimate, the subsequent violation of article 47 of the said constitution that rendered any amendment that impaired the federal character of the Republic null and void rendered the alleged union the constitution purported to create void ab initio.
Besides, that constitution was not and could not be the union treaty contemplated by the UN Resolutions on Southern Cameroons because in promulgating the said Constitution into law, Ahmadou Ahidjo did not draw inspiration from the UN Resolution on Southern Cameroons, or the Plebiscite of 11 February 1961. He simply did so through an amendment of and adaptation to the Constitution of a "reunified La Republique Du Cameroun" of 4 March 1960 through Law No. 61-24 of 1 September 1961.
It is therefore in error for anyone to hold that that amendment of the Constitution of La Republique Du Cameroun by Law No. 61-24 of 1 September 1961 even before the Independence of the Southern Cameroons on 1 October 1961 created a valid and subsisting union contemplated by the UN for the purpose of its charter obligations. That law was rather the very basis of annexation and colonization of the Southern Cameroons which all peace loving people of the world must condemn vehemently.
It was therefore in perpetuation of this illegality that La Republique Du Cameroun in 1972 organized a purported referendum to create a unitary state, in violation of article 47 of its own amended constitution, a so-called Federal Constitution.
These illegalities and criminal annexation and colonization have invariably been denounced by Prominent Southern Cameroonians led by HRM Fon Gorgi Dinka, Professor Carlson Anyangwe, Albert Womah Mukong and a plethora of others listed by an eminent Camerounian Scholar Pierre Fabien Nkot in his seminal book "Usage Politiques du Droit En Afrique : Le Cas Du Cameroun".pg35-40.
In recognition of the illegalities denounced vehemently and persistently by many led by Fon Dinka in particular for and on behalf of the severely repressed revolting masses of the Southern Cameroons-Ambazonia and cognizant of the gravity of the consequences of the crimes of annexation and colonization, the President of La Republique Du Cameroun, Paul Biya, in 1984, enacted a law reverting the Republique du Cameroun to its legal personality at Independence, and with it, its internationally recognized boundaries, its state symbols and re-emphasized this fact as Dinka has rightly stated in the Greentree agreement with Nigeria.
La Republique Du Cameroun was offered an opportunity to get into a valid , Federation with the Southern Cameroons at the AAC1, reiterated at the AACII and she declined. In so declining, she exercised an act of sovereignty which Southern Cameroons was mandated in law to respect and did respect. La Republique is similarly obligated to respect International Law and her UN Charter obligations by vacating the territory of Southern Cameroons-Ambazonia forthwith.
According to Pierre Fabien Nkot, ( pg 40) Paul Biya has boasted that he was ready to organize a referendum to show the world that only a minority of Southern Cameroons was agitating to regain her sovereignty. The African Commission ordered that dialogue should be held under its auspices to resolve the Southern Cameroons problem. I encourage President Biya to bring this suggestion to the negotiating table which if accepted could be an alternative to violence and needless loss of life and limb.
For me, and a majority of Southern Cameroonians, anything other than a regain of sovereignty in conformity with international law is simply unacceptable. The contrary will give tacit blessings to impunity and crimes against the peace for which the UN and the civilized world are firmly opposed.
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (ambasbay@googlegroups.com) Add cleanup rule | More info
--Hi Prof.There are more to come. The legal interpretation of the of the UN charter concerning decolonization of trust territories is just mind blowing. The issue of Britain separating the territory deal with, countries that join in federation just like Ambazonia(Southern Cameroons) and Cameroun and later on seperated. The legal application or interpretation of Artcle 102 also dealt with in other number of cases.We are the ones refusing to face the facts as there are, because we do not like this or that person. If not we should have teamed up long ago to kick Yaounde out of Ambazonia.There are more but no enough resources to pull them out.I personal feel that Yaounde is in a legal trouble with her lies over the years.RegardsMANAmbazonianDown Under
From: 'Prof. Martin Ayim' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
To: "Ambazonianationalgroup@yahoogroups.com" <Ambazonianationalgroup@yahoogroups.com>; Ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; yahoogroups <ambaszone@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2016, 20:55
Subject: Re: Cameroons under British Administration
MAN.This is a historically solid, factual, and legally unemotional approach that frees anyone from being termed terrorists. I like the legal source of the UN cited as reference. This is the first time I am seeing this source. Thank you Sir for such a good job._____________________________
"Ta Nformi" Prof Martin Ayim
-----------------------------------------------------Endowed Professor of Health Education & Health PromotionAcademic Advisor & Coordinator of Health Promotion Program, Grambling State University LouisianaInternational Representative for Africa-National Association of African American Studies & Affiliates (NAAAS)Executive Director of Minority Health Promotion Initiative (MHPI) www.minorityhealthpromotion.comFacebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Minority-Health-Promotion-Initiative-Inc-MHPI-Inc-1619237435022666/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel2015 Facebook launching of MHPI:"Success is no accident. It is hard work, perseverance, learning, sacrifice, and most of all, love of what you are doing or learning to do!" --(Pele)Tell me and I forget. Teach me, and I may remember. Involve me and I learn.(Benjamin Franklin)"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling,but in rising every time we fall" (Mandela)------------------------------SERENITY PRAYER:God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; and Wisdom to know the difference (Nehmur)On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 7:17 AM, "M A N lordamos88@yahoo.com [Ambazonianationalgroup]" <Ambazonianationalgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Cameroons under British AdministrationAchievement of Independence and Termination of Trusteeship AgreementAs a result of plebiscites held on 11 and 12 February 1961 under United Nations supervision, the northern and southern parts of the British-administered Trust Territory of the Cameroons achieved their independence in 1961 -the northern part on 1 June 1961 by joining the Federation of Nigeria, and the Southern part on 1 October 1961 by joining the Republic of Cameroun.On 21 April 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (1608 XV)6 endorsing the results of the plebiscites in which the people of the Northern Cameroons decided to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria, and the people of the Southern Cameroons decided to do so by joining the Republic of Cameroun. The General Assembly further decided that the Trusteeship Agreement concerning the Trust Territory should be terminated in accordance with Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter (for text, see APPENDIX II) and in agreement with the Administering Authority, in the following manner: in the Northern Cameroons on 1 June 1961, when it joined the Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria, and in the Southern Cameroons on 1 October 1961, when it joined the Republic of Cameroun. The Assembly also invited the Administering Authority, the Government of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to initiate urgent discussions with a view to completing, before 1 October 1961. The arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned would be implemented.At the twenty-seventh session of the Trusteeship Council (1 June-19 July 1961), the representative of the Administering Authority stated that the present situation with respect to the Trust Territory was governed by General Assembly resolution 1608(XV) of 21 April 1961. He added that, in compliance with the Assembly's invitation, preliminary discussions had been followed by a meeting in mid-June 1961 which was attended by representatives of the Southern Cameroons, the Republic of Cameroun and the United Kingdom Government. Some progress had been made at those discussions, and it was hoped that, as a result of informal talks that were continuing, further discussions would take place very soon.Later in 1961, at the sixteenth session of the General Assembly, the President of the Trusteeship Council informed the Assembly's Fourth Committee that the Northern Cameroons had joined the Federation of Nigeria on 1 June 1961 as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria, and that the Southern
Cameroons had joined the Republic of Cameroun as the Western Province of the Republic on 1 October 1961. The representative of Cameroun added that the Southern Cameroons had become an integral part of the territory of the Federal Republic of Cameroun.DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES (Ambazonia is still researching them)…………………………………..6 See Y.U.N., 1960. pp. 476-77.………………………………………………….United Nation Yearbook 1962Page 452ATTAINMENT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENCEIn a note verbale dated 27 February 1962, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom informed the Secretary-General that, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1608(XV) of 21 April 1961,3 the trusteeship over the former British-administered Trust Territory of the Cameroons, exercised by the United Kingdom Government under the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946, had terminated in the case of the Northern Cameroons on 1 June 1961, when the Northern Cameroons joined the Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria. In the case of the Southern Cameroons, the trusteeship had terminated at midnight on 30 September 1961, when the Southern Cameroons joined the Republic of Cameroon43 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 476-77.4See Y.U.N., 1961, pp. 494-95……………………………………………………………………………..endDear ComradesThere is a lot of official legal information out there that can explain certain statements or actions taken by Cameroun against us. There is enough legal interpretation or analysis that had been made by International law Commission (ILC) on every Resolution ever taken over and during the handling of the Trusteeship of British Cameroons. The ILC is the legal department of the United Nations. This body gives legal guide or interpretation to every action of the United Nations to comply with the UN Charter. This department is the backbone or core of international law emanating from the United Nations.If we want to say that analysis the following path ways;a) There was no independence for Southern Cameroons, thereby no Federation Union because there was no treaty;b) There was independence for the Southern Cameroons, thereby a Federal Union, "with or without a treaty" but ended in 1984 with the promulgation of Law 84/01 by the parliament of the United Republic of Cameroon.c) There was no independence for the British Cameroons (Northern & Southern Cameroons) thereby no union treaty, because the United Nations did not comply with Article 76b of the Charter or whatsoever.From the above three options, if legal and natural wisdom does not prevail, then we are in for a real mess –if and only if the foundation or source of the needed law to interpret is from the United Nations.Each of the above three pathways or options has serious personalities to address –namely1) United Nations, 2) United Kingdom, 3) Cameroun + France 4) Nigeria.Mindful of the fact that there is no Court that will directly pronounce on matters of Annexation/Subjugation of a Nation, I stand to be corrected on this. Because nation came in being from a gentleman club call the United Nations;Mindful of the legal interpretations or analysis on each step taken during the terminating process of the Trusteeship of the British Cameroons by the International Law Commission (ILC), the legal department of the United Nations; This ILC works with the Fourth Committee that is in charge for decolonization till today and it duties is to ensure each action taken by the Fourth Committee must comply with United Nations Charter and international law;Considering the international influences that United Kingdom, France, Nigeria, and Cameroun can mount on us on the international stage;Considering that the official stand of the British, and United Nations is that the Trusteeship for the British Cameroons was terminated in accordance with Article 76 b (Independence) with Northern Cameroons joining Nigeria as separate province in the Nigeria Federation, and Southern Cameroons on it part has joined the independent Republic of Cameroun to form Federation Union as of 1st October 1961;Considering the poor qualities and the bad faith of our political leaders at the time –which are recorded in the archives of the British government;Considering that this is a matter of law, the body that made those laws in the first place is the UN, and that the UN legal department had already given the legal interpretation of every resolution in the process of terminating the trusteeship of the British Cameroons in regards to the UN Charter – says everything was within the law and there was independence and a Federal Union for the Southern Cameroons with the independent Cameroun.Therefore if we are to question the Trusteeship, or non-implementation Resolution 1608 XV which is based on the Plebiscite Pact, ---which are all legal texts as propounded and acknowledged by the very United Nations --- that has in his archives legal interpretation affirming the fact that the State of Southern Cameroons had independence as per Article 76b and entered into a Federal Union with the independent Republic of Cameroun as sovereign equal nations. The question is while will we one to challenge the United Nations as well as the foundation of that law?The United Nations and Britain are in "direct" support of us but we are the ones that are against, because we are saying there was no independence, no federation, No treaty, there no URC Restoration law 84/01 and the trusteeship was not handled well etc. But these UN and Britain says there was independence that lead to a Federation Union. We should not be carried away by the bad faith of the British, Cameroun and our political leaders at the time. United Nations interpretation of Article 76b is within the law and it is there in their legal records that there was independence and a Federal Union. All we need to do is correct the way we present out case. Cameroun should be our focus because the UN legal archives has it that there was independence and then a Federal Union. Britain on her part correlate the same fact. The SCNC should confirmed this British stand because the British foreign office sent a letter to this effect to the SCNC.The question now should be, was there something like a Federal Union in the practical sense? Is it still there? What happened and when? But if we are ones denying stated or existed facts just because we have uncovered some errors or malpractices that happened during the process, then we are in for a long mess. All the state institutions of the West Cameroon were happily and willingly united with that of East Cameroon in a union.One of the stated facts is that from 1st October 1961 till February 1984 there was something called Federal or United Republic of Cameroon. No body complained about it, not until the Ambazonian Restoration Council (ARC) under the leadership of late Dr. Bernard Nsokika Fonlon made the first open complain in 1985 in what is known as the New Social Order. Not even the king pin leaders themselves accepted that something significant has taken place. When did we came to know that there was no union and treaty? Are not hypocrite?In effect, it will be easier for us to proof that there was independence and a Federal Union that eventually ended in 1984 with legal documentary evident from United Nations legal department, the British official stand and the last law passed parliament of the then United Republic of Cameroon which law 84/01. All we care or know is to say there was no union because there was no treaty. Do we stand to gain more support for this?The actions of the Ambazonia original Six persons that gave birth to this struggle, that later formed the Ambazonian Restoration Council (ARC) back in 1985 were 80% correct with their God given wisdom to frame our struggle the way they did. The amount of knowledge gotten after their original vision in 1985 has only added more value to the initial God vision. From the original six, how many are left, and how many have passed on? How many are still active with their original vision? We want all of them to pass on before we come to our senses? That is dishonesty of the first order. Who is really our own so called "father of the Nation" who stood first for the interest of the nation and not personal gains?One of the essential idea the vision of the original Ambazonian Six was that, lack of a unique identity was a contributing factor for our Annexation. Much thanks to very one who now stand in support of that idea. We are one step ahead by naming ourselves by ourselves, as a people that had completed all developmental stages of "a people" from 1922 to 1st October 1961 as an independent and Sovereign Nation that is now under occupation/annexation/subjugation by Republic Cameroun. The UN and Britain says are independence so let's act as truly independent people and not to downgrade as the Banjul stated. From 1922 to 1st October 1960 under the British, we completes the last developmental stages of "a people" are we to start another cycle under Cameroun as per Banjul ruling?As we gradually come to accept the change in mindset as Ambazonian (Southern Cameroons), we should be reconsidering which of the three option (a) (b) and (c) above, is the best to adopt as the way forward.There is a lot of valuable information on our case but your support has been seriously lacking. We keep wasting resources, energy, and time only to reach at a point where, no long lasting profit for all the efforts.We have wasted much energy, time, and resources during the CNU Bamenda Congress of 1984 which gave birth to the CPDM, the same with SDF in 1990, the same during the AAC I & II, the same during 9 man delegation to the UN in 1995, the same during the SCAPO/SCNC Banjul case, the same during SCNC to Unrepresented Nations Organization, the same during the Adams Town meeting in the United State ---just to name a few. The question now is why can we not try and give just half the support ever spend on any of the above venture to option (b) now and see the outcome.We have spent too much time arguing and writing stories about this and that person, not looking or focusing first at the principles someone is standing for, but we keep looking at personalities. What a shame.There are real actions now going on, that can add value if completed, but where is our support? All we want is to be free. There are missions to be embark on to coordinate things, very few are responding. Where do we go from here? A onetime contribution of $100 from 100 real Ambazonia nationalist can sustain an effective PR campaign on the home front for more than a year for our people to know the truth. How can a people be free without knowledge? All we do is to sit on computers in our various perverted nations abroad thinking we are doing fine.Thanks to all Ambazonians because we have decided to name ourselves by ourselves because we are an independent nation though under occupation. As we move on now let focus on the principle a person stand for and not personality. Think of strategic means to end occupation and not to keep repeating history without a strategic escape route.I will welcome any concern openly or privately.With much concernMANAmbazonianDownUnder__._,_.___
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) 
.
__,_._,___--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment