Demonstrating the Concolonization/Annexation of Southern British Cameroons by French Cameroun
Prof C. Anyangwe's confutation of the re-unification of Kamerun myth as peddled by deceitful francophones is very just (see The African Commission's Ruling in Gumne et al v. Cameroun : Digest and Comment, 1 February 2010.
Professor Anyangwe writes:
In its Memorial in Communication 266 complainants asserted and demonstrated that the Southern Cameroons has been annexed by Republique du Cameroun and remains under the colonial occupation of that country. The Commission rightly characterised this development as very serious. Indeed it is, and the people of the Southern Cameroons do not make the charge of colonial occupation lightly. First, the occupying State does not deny that it is in complete and asphyxiating control of the Southern Cameroons and administering the territory following its inherited French system. Over the years it has been fishing for some possible justification of its seizure of that territory. In the 1960s it argued that it simply took over a hitherto separated part of its territory handed over to it by the UN and Britain. When challenged to produce the instrument by which the UN and Britain allegedly ceded the Southern Cameroons to it (a legal impossibility since neither the UN nor Britain were owners of the territory), Republique du Cameroun changed its story. It claimed that its occupation of the Southern Cameroons is by virtue of what it called "reunification on 1st October 1961 following the plebiscite vote on 11 February 1961". But when it was pointed out that one cannot credibly talk of so-called 'reunification' when the Southern Cameroons was never, in the first place, a part of French Cameroun, and when at the plebiscite there was no such option as 'reunification' and there could not have been any, Republique du Cameroun then changed once more the basis of its hopeless claim. It then sought to found its claim on a brief and ill-defined German Kamerun entity and then proclaimed itself the state successor to that entity. But German Kamerun (parts of which are now legally within at least five different countries) lasted only some 25-odd years and was long since extinct. Besides, the political existence of Republique du Cameroun dates not from 1884 but from the inception of French colonial rule in 1916.
Further, it is both a legal and a factual impossibility for a country to succeed at independence not to the territory of the immediate predecessor state but to the territory long extinct of a remote predecessor state. Furthermore, the plebiscite itself was a complete refutation of the lie that the Southern Cameroons is a part of Republique du Cameroun. If the Southern Cameroons were a part of that country the plebiscite would have been redundant and the territory simply handed over to Republique du Cameroun like Ifni handed over to Morocco by Spain, Hong Kong to China by Britain and Walvis Bay to Namibia by South Africa. Claim to territory can never be founded on mere geographical contiguity or on a remote, superficial and ephemeral historical connection. That is why the claim of Spain to Gibraltar and the claim of Argentina to the Falkland Islands have never succeeded. The plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons was a clear and loud statement by the international community that the native inhabitants of the Southern Cameroons constitute a people and therefore have the inalienable and continuing right to self-determination.
Let the record be put straight. At the plebiscite the people of the Southern Cameroons voted first and foremost to achieve independence (the effective date of which was set by the UN to be 1st October 1961) and, as a secondary matter, to form a political association with Republique du Cameroun under certain terms and conditions. At the plebiscite there was therefore no such thing as a so-called 'vote for reunification'. There could have been no such vote because there was no such alternative. Nor was there any so-called 'reunification' on 1st October 1961. That date was billed as the date on which UN trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons was to end, resulting in independence for the territory; it was also the date on which there was to come into existence an agreed federal form of political association between the Southern Cameroons state and Republique du Cameroun, duly underpinned by an Act of Union subscribed to by both parties.
But before that date Republique du Cameroun had illegally assumed jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons by performing acts of sovereignty in the territory, while the British conspiratorially looked the other way. On 1st September 1961 Republique du Cameroun passed in its parliament an annexation law (in the form of a constitutional amendment law deceptively denoted as a 'federal constitution') by which it formally claimed the Southern Cameroons as part of its territory and asserted jurisdiction over it. In that same month Republique du Cameroun's French-led troops marched into the Southern Cameroons and immediately announced their presence and demonstrated their trigger-happy nature by murdering six citizens in cold blood, again while the British looked the other way.
1st October 1961 witnessed the formal ending of UN trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons. But the independence which the people had voted for and whose effective date the UN had set for 1st October 1961 remains paper independence to this day because its enjoyment was immediately suppressed by Republique du Cameroun in two very significant ways. Republique du Cameroun sent its troops into the Southern Cameroons, with the result that it remains an occupied territory to this day. Then, after the British Commissioner of the Southern Cameroons departed on 1st October 1961 Republique du Cameroun immediately appointed one of its citizens to the Southern Cameroons as the new colonial governor, stepping into the shoes of the departed British Commissioner. The new and French-speaking colonial officer was euphemistically styled 'inspecteur d' administration', a denomination later changed to that of 'governeur de province/region'. Thus, the so-called 'reunification' much trumpeted by Republique du Cameroun is a mere myth and at best a Nazi-type 'reunification' of Alsace Lorraine and then Austria, with the Third Reich.
In the 1970s, believing it had achieved its colonial goal of a complete francophonisation of the people of the Southern Cameroons and total destruction of their identity, and in order to have unhindered access to the wealth and natural resources of the Southern Cameroons, Republique du Cameroun contrived to manufacture another 'reunification' which it called 'unification', a stage in its imperial agenda admitting of no diversity, no multiculturalism, no multi-nationalism, within its colonial set-up: the Southern Cameroons had to be completely extinguished, its people destroyed as a distinct and separate people and then sunk wholesale into the French world of Republique du Cameroun. But Republique du Cameroun did not reckon with the innate human yearning for freedom, the innate human nature and ability to resist oppression and domination, the innate individual and collective human instinct for survival, and the resilience of the people of the Southern Cameroons in the face of great national adversity and peril. (Anyangwe, )
Now that its colonial occupation of the Southern Cameroons has been thoroughly exposed Republique du Cameroun claims to have been able to find a new basis for its tragic colonial adventure in the Southern Cameroons. It now makes the dishonest and infantile claim that the ICJ ruling in the 'Bakassi case' confirms that the Southern Cameroons is part of the territory of Republique du Cameroun and that the ruling acknowledges Republique du Cameroun's sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons. But this is more of wishful thinking than what the ICJ decided in that case. The ICJ could not have decided those points for the simple reason that those matters were never pleaded before the Court. It is elementary that a court of law does not adjudicate on matters not put before it and argued by the parties. Sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons and the boundaries of the Southern Cameroons were not issues before the Court. Therefore, the Court cannot possibly be taken to have decided those issues. In any event, the ICJ is not a territorial sovereign; it does not have territory with which to assuage the colonial cravings of expansionist states. In 1961 Republique du Cameroun had tried to lay the foundation for its expansionism by claiming in the Northern Cameroons case that it had an interest in a so-called "reunification of all the people of Cameroun." Republique du Cameroun had already set its eyes on annexing the Southern Cameroons. Its next step was to grab the Northern Cameroons via the ICJ. Had it succeeded it would have moved on to lay claim to parts of Gabon, Congo, Central African Republic and Chad on the basis that the pieces of territory in question formed part of German Kamerun. Fortunately, the ICJ at the time quickly saw through this imperial agenda and non-suited Republique du Cameroun which promptly declared what turned out to be an ephemeral day of crocodile tears.
The evidence of annexation and colonial occupation of the Southern Cameroons is therefore overwhelming; and every citizen of the Southern Cameroons is a colonized being however much those co-opted into the administration of the colonialist (a typical French colonial practice) might pretend. But there is further evidence of colonialism which tallies with the findings of a study (2009) by the Middle East Project of the HSRC entitled 'Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid: A Re-assessment of Israel's practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories under International Law.' "The terms of the Declaration on [the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples and Territories],'' the study affirms, "indicate that a situation may be classified as colonial when the acts of a State have the cumulative outcome that it annexes or otherwise unlawfully retains control over territory and thus aims permanently to deny its indigenous population the exercise of its right to self-determination."
First, the indigenous population of the Southern Cameroons have no control over their territory, the territorial integrity of which has been violated by Republique du Cameroun by the fact of occupation of the Southern Cameroons and the partitioning of the Southern Cameroons into provinces/regions tagged to contiguous Cameroun Republic areas. This violates the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence.
Secondly, the people of the Southern Cameroons hitherto self-governing under British colonial rule have since been deprived of the capacity for self-governance. Republique du Cameroun exercises total civil and military administration of the Southern Cameroons through a hierarchy of Republique du Cameroun officials. Unlike under British colonial rule, there is now no Southern Cameroons parliament, no Southern Cameroons government, no Southern Cameroons judiciary, no Southern Cameroons administration, no Southern Cameroons public service, and no Southern Cameroons police service. Republique du Cameroun retains full and total control over the territory. The people of the Southern Cameroons cannot freely determine their political status. They cannot freely pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they should freely choose. They cannot exercise the right to their economic, social and cultural development. The enjoyment of the independence voted for at the plebiscite in 1961 has been suppressed by Republique du Cameroun, thereby violating the right of the people of the Southern Cameroons to self-determination. Republique du Cameroun is seeking permanently to deny the people of the Southern Cameroons the exercise of their inalienable and continuing right to self-determination.
Thirdly, whereas international law ordains that the territory and economy of a colonial territory must remain separate and distinct from that of the colonising power, Republique du Cameroun has completely subordinated and subsumed the territory and economy of the Southern Cameroons to its own, in fact fused the economy of the Southern Cameroons into its own so that structurally there is no longer any distinction between the two, with the result that the people of the Southern Cameroons have been totally deprived of the capacity to govern and order their economic affairs. Their right to economic self-determination has thus been suppressed.
Fourth, Republique du Cameroun is in breach of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in relation to the Southern Cameroons. The right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources entitles a people to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources and in no case shall they be deprived of it. Oil, timber, gas, mineral and cash crop resources are taken from the Southern Cameroons for the exclusive development of Republique du Cameroun. The Southern Cameroons has changed little in the past 50 years: The existing few kilometres of tarred roads are the typical colonial 'extractive routes' meant to facilitate the evacuation of natural resources and food commodities from the Southern Cameroons to Republique du Cameroun. Most parts of the Southern Cameroons are unreachable throughout the year and head load over long distances is still very common. Water, electricity and health facilities remain rare amenities. Infrastructural development is virtually absent. The enjoyment of second, like first, generation human rights remain a pipe dream.
Fifthly, Republique du Cameroun has denied the people of the Southern Cameroons the right freely to express, develop and practice their culture. The practices of Republique du Cameroun privilege the French language, the French legal system, the French administrative system, the French educational system and the French-based cultural referents of Republique du Cameroun, while materially and purposefully hampering the Anglo-American-based cultural development and expression of the people of the Southern Cameroons.
Clearly, the implementation by Republique du Cameroun of its colonial policy has been systematic and comprehensive. The exercise by the people of the Southern Cameroons of their right to self-determination has been frustrated in all its principal modes of expression. Living in complete denial even in the face of compelling evidence, Republique du Cameroun argues lamely that Africa is now free and therefore the Southern Cameroons is not under colonial occupation. But that is like arguing that there is now no slavery in the world because slavery was abolished a long time ago. Colonialism is colour-blind. It is no less reprehensible because it is perpetrated by one of our kind. No one has ever argued that Americans and the Irish were never colonised by the British because they are all whites (and even with a substantial cultural and blood relations). German occupation of France was rejected as was Japanese occupation of China.
Colonisation is slavery, a form of terrorism and a threat to international peace and security. Article 20 of the African Charter emphatically rejects it and the AU in the preamble to that Charter strongly denounces it. The existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, is thus incompatible with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. It is also incompatible with the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Declaration on Decolonisation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is duty bound to affirm its support for the aspirations of the people of the Southern Cameroons, under Republique du Cameroun's colonial rule, to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence. If there is any doubt about this aspiration let an independence referendum, internationally supervised and monitored, be held in the Southern Cameroons. That is an internationally recognised peaceful method of resolving an issue of this nature and for which there are many precedents.
Further to the Furthermore:
UNIFICATION' and 'RE-UNIFICATION
Prof Carlson Anyangwe provives even more etailed notes on the "unification" versus "reunification" issue in an interview with Abakwa Times.
Excerpt.
As I have said there was no reconstitution of extinct 'Kamerun' in 1961 or at any time after that date. It was and shall ever be infeasible for that to happen. The 'reunification' of 'Kamerun' would have entailed bringing together the Southern Cameroons, the Northern Cameroons (part of Nigeria since June 1961), Cameroun Republic, the Neue Kamerun (part of Gabon and Congo Brazzaville), and the Duckbill (part of Chad and Central African Republic). The projected political association of the Southern Cameroons and Cameroun Republic in 1961 cannot credibly be touted as reunification for the simple reason that the Southern Cameroons and Cameroun Republic never at any time formed a single political entity and then later became separated, in which case the projected political association could then have been accurately said to have been 'reunification.' It is futile trying to go back to the territory over which Germany proclaimed a protectorate in 1884. Let the record be put straight. There was no Kamerun nation in 1884 or at any time before or after that date. The area depicted in colonial maps as Kamerun at the time of Germany's defeat in World War I was inhabited by a multitude of distinct and far flung tribal communities with hardly any connection or anything in common with each other. As of 1914 only in the coastal area was there any sense of the existence of Kamerun. What was claimed in 1884 was the Dwala (Douala) mud flat estuarine enclave. That was the territory, and none other, that the Duala chiefs handed over and could have handed over to the Germans. In 1884 the Ambas Bay coastal strip (Bimbia to Bakassi) and its hinterland was British and not part of the German Kamerun. Even when it was later ceded to Germany in 1887 it was quickly retaken by the British in August 1914 and became the British Cameroons. Germany's original Douala estuary protectorate proclaimed in 1884 and subsequently extended inland went to France and it became French Cameroun. The idea that there was a Kamerun nation that was partitioned or dismembered following the defeat of Germany is an elephantine political falsehood peddled over the years to serve a hegemonic agenda.
There could not have been and there was no 'reunification' for the following additional reasons. At the plebiscite there was no such offer as 'reunification' as a choice. Such an offer would have been a complete negation of the international tutelage system and the United Nations Charter. Since there was no such choice there could not have been a vote for an inexistent alternative. Further, reunification would have made a complete nonsense of the plebiscite itself. If the Southern Cameroons was a part of Cameroun Republic the plebiscite would have been redundant and the territory simply returned to Cameroun Republic like Ifni to Morocco or Hong Kong to China. The indiscriminate and promiscuous use of the terms 'unification' and 'reunification' by some people is reflective of poverty of thought. Those who talk of 'reunification' seem unaware that even at Foumban the supposedly welcoming banner at the meeting room proclaimed, 'Vive le Cameroun unifié'. The banner did not say, and could not have said, 'Vive la République du Cameroun unifiée', 'Vive la République du Cameroun reunifiée', 'Vive le Cameroun reunifié', or 'Vive le Kamerun unifié/reunifié'. Cameroun Republic's Note Verbale of 24 December 1960 spoke of unification and not reunification.
Two or more countries can unify to form one country whether they had any previous historical connection or not with each other. Sometimes the word 'united' or 'union' is used to denote such unification as in United States of America, United Kingdom, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, United Republic of Tanzania. Sometimes the new country takes a completely new name as in the case of the union of the Gold Coast and British Togoland which saw Ghana as the new name of the conjoint countries, or the union of British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland which took Somalia as the name of the new state, or again the union of Zanzibar and Tanganyika which gave rise to Tanzania. Sometimes also the names of the uniting countries are simply conjoined as in the case of the union of New Guinea and Papua where the new country took the name Papua New Guinea. So, conceivably there could have been a union or unification of the Southern Cameroons and Cameroun Republic resulting in a new name for the new state. Since two or more countries cannot unite informally, a union of the Southern Cameroons and Cameroun Republic would have resulted in a new state and a new name and would have been on clear terms set out in a union agreement subscribed by the two uniting countries. This did not happen. Contraptions such as 'federal republic of Cameroon' and 'united republic of Cameroon' despotically decreed into existence were not genuine legal and political expressions. They were strategies for effecting the annexation of the Southern Cameroons and to enable its people to adjust to the francophonity and the French world of Cameroun Republic. In the mindset of Cameroun Republic's colonial-minded political leaders the term unification quickly metamorphosed within a matter of months into reunification. The shift was meant to soft-cushion and whitewash territorial expansion, annexation, and colonial occupation.
Cameroun Republic claims it simply recovered the Southern Cameroons as part of its territory returned to it by the UN, but it has been unable to say when and how it acquired the Southern Cameroons and when and how it lost the territory to the United Nations. Cameroun Republic chose to ignore international law. It conveniently forgets that in 1961 it made a similar claim in respect of the British Northern Cameroons but it was rejected in 1963 by the International Court of Justice in the Northern Cameroons case. Following the rejection of that claim Cameroun Republic declared the British Northern Cameroons its Alsace-Lorraine, promising to recover it. It then decreed 1st June an annual day of 'mourning' for what it claimed to be the loss of part of its territory. But one year afterwards no one ever heard again of Cameroun Republic's Annual Day of National Mourning and of its thoroughly misplaced Alsace-Lorraine analogy.
When the President of the occupying State suddenly announces an impending journey to Buea, capital of the Southern Cameroons, to 'celebrate' an imaginary 'reunification', he is provocatively going to Buea to commemorate colonial occupation by staging a Roman-like 'victory parade'. In this instance though there is no military victory for the Camerounese occupation forces to show. Cameroun Republic cannot show evidence of any conquest by bullet or even by pen. Going to Buea to 'celebrate' colonial occupation is adding insult to injury because the message that is being communicated is this: "I am here in Buea. Yes, you have been annexed. You can go and drink the sea." As part of the preparation for that 'celebration' the ever scheming rulers of Cameroun Republic plotted to knock down the Schloss. The reason is that they cannot stand the powerful symbolism of Southern Cameroons statehood that the Schloss represents. It is the same strong power of the symbolism of the name Victoria that prompted them to purport to change it to 'Limbe' in the hope of wiping out a piece of our shining history. Now they must be devising ways by which to move Buea Mountain, Victoria sea front, and Bakassi to their territory. Well might they ever spend troubled nights! Geography too is on our side. It is the same geography that impelled the Germans to move the capital of their original Kamerun colonial territory from Douala to Buea in the territory they had just newly acquired.
The falsity that any such event as 'reunification' took place on 1 October 1961 can be seen in another respect. Before that date Cameroun Republic purported to exercise acts of sovereignty in the Southern Cameroons even while it was still a UN trust territory. And in October 1961 Cameroun Republic's 'Inspecteur Fédéral d'Administration' simply stepped into the shoes of the run-away British Commissioner of the Southern Cameroons. The President of Cameroun Republic himself assumed the role and functions previous carried out by the UK Government in relation to the Southern Cameroons.
Ironically, the reunification rhetoric would seem to apply more to the proposition for joinder to Nigeria than to Cameroun Republic. The Southern Cameroons had 45 years of intense and fruitful and constitutional association with Nigeria. It was separated from Nigeria on 1 October 1960. So in 1961 the plebiscite alternative of joining Nigeria could well have been touted as reunification of the Nigerian polity. But that language was never used and even the joinder of the British Northern Cameroons to Nigeria was never and has never been presented as reunification.
Furthermost to the Furthermore: (idem)
Reunification.
No talk on 'reunification' of territories is meaningful unless there is clearly identified the territories that were once unified, separated and then re-unified. Germany which was unified by 1871 thanks to the labours of Bismarck, remained one country until the defeat of Hitler in 1945 when it was split in 1949 into two states, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1990 the two countries agreed to reconstitute a single Germany, underpinned by a treaty. The 1990 reconstitution of Germany was correctly presented as 'reunification'. The same would be true if the two states of North Korea and South Korea were today to decide to reconstitute the single independent state of Korea that was forcibly annexed in 1910 by Japan as Chosun and which was split in 1948.
In the present case one cannot credibly talk of reunification of Kamerun, the German colonial territory that lasted less than thirty years. Five parts of that entity are now within the territory of five limitrophic states: Nigeria, Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville, Chad and Central African Republic. Reunification or even unification of Kamerun will require bringing together again all these various parts to form a single state, inclusive of the Southern Cameroons and Cameroun Republic. That has never been on the cards, is not and will never be. One cannot even begin to talk of reunification or even unification of Cameroun Republic. The existence of Cameroun Republic as a political expression goes back to French Cameroun which emerged in 1922 as a result of the political force represented by the mandates system. (It is noteworthy that from 1916 when Germany was defeated in Kamerun until the institution of the mandates system in 1922, France, still licking the wounds of its crushing defeat in 1870 by Prussia, held the Kamerun area under its occupation as enemy territory seized in war, the enemy being of course Germany). At independence Cameroun Republic inherited its territories from French Cameroun. The country has suffered no dismemberment. There are therefore no separated parts which are then being reconstituted. One cannot therefore speak of unification or reunification of Cameroun Republic. The Southern Cameroons was not part of French Cameroun, has never been and will never be part of Cameroun Republic. The plebiscite vote on 11 February 1961 for independence, and political association with Cameroun Republic in a federation of two states, equal in status cannot therefore be presented as a vote for 'reunification' whether of Cameroun Republic or of Kamerun, a name that has never had currency in Cameroun Republic, and an entity long extinct. At the plebiscite on 11 February 1961 there was no such political status option available as 'reunification'. There could therefore have been no vote for an option that was not available.
Politicians did sometimes use the term 'reunification'. But our politicians are not known for always using apposite terminology. Besides, the fact that the term was used does not make such use legally, historically and etymologically correct. There has been no such thing as 'reunification' of the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroun. Even at Foumban, the banner on display spoke of 'unification' and not of 'reunification'. Some argue that the terms 'reunification' and 'unification' mean one and the same thing in Cameroon historiography. Historiography is writing about history rather than of history, a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past. If that is the case writers of our history who persevere in the use of unification and reunification as interchangeable terminologies lay themselves open to a charge of poverty of thought and conceptualization regarding the event they analyse. The truth of the matter is that Republic of Cameroun's addictive use of 'reunification' is meant to camouflage the fact of its colonial occupation of the Southern Cameroons and to condition the people of the territory to acquiesce in that colonialism. In the watery mouth of the slippery rulers of Cameroun Republic 'reunification' has changing meaning depending on time, place and audience. According to Cameroun Republic officialdom, that country achieved 'independence' on 1 January 1960 and then 'reunification' on 1 October 1961. It then proceeded to achieve 'total national unity' on 20 May 1972 and 'completion of total national unity' on 4 February 1984. It valiantly moved on to achieve 'completion of complete national unity' following the promulgation of the 1996 constitution, and 'the apotheosis of national unity' since then. The voyage to Buea of the President of Cameroun Republic would then be the 'super apotheosis of national unity'. This is an impressive Alice-in-Wonderland gobbledegook! The appropriation of 'unification' or 'reunification' by Cameroun Republic is a self-serving highly instrumental strategy. It has always been an attempt by that country to legitimize its colonial occupation, rule and exploitation in the Southern Cameroons. All Southern Cameroons anti-colonial forces are determined to delegitimize that rhetoric and narrative.
Southern Cameroons plus Cameroun Republic cannot be equal to Cameroun Republic. That would be annexation, not reunification. Cameroun Republic knows this only too well. So right from the beginning it contrived to make its annexation and colonial occupation of the Southern Cameroons somehow palatable to swallow. It uses reunification as a polysemous expression to camouflage annexation. It has been aided in this cheap language ploy by the polysemous name 'Cameroon'. There cannot be reunification of two political entities resulting in the existence of only one of the two reuniting entities. In other words, to say that the Southern Cameroons + Cameroun Republic = Cameroun Republic is a mathematical nonsense and is possible only if the Southern Cameroons = zero, which is not and cannot be the case. The equation: the Southern Cameroons + Cameroun Republic = Cameroun Republic signifies in political terms that the Southern Cameroons has been absorbed, annexed, colonized by Cameroun Republic. This is the conclusion arrived at by every single serious writer whether jurist, politician or social scientist who has applied their mind to the Southern Cameroons tragedy.[1]
Further to the Furthermost: (idem)
Uti possidetis Juris
This is in fact what I say in that publication: Successful self-determination claims since the end of European colonization constitute evidence of state practice borne out of the conviction that contemporary human rights law recognizes self-determination as a continuing right that is not necessarily inconsistent with the principles of uti possidetis and respect for territorial integrity. The right to self-determination, which now has the character of jus cogens, is not only a procedural right available in the process of decolonization and by which the inhabitants of a colonial territory freely decide their political status. It is also a substantive human right, the right of all peoples to self-rule or sovereign statehood and, like all human rights it is inherent, continuing, unquestionable and inalienable. It may be invoked by a people subjected to circumstances such as domination, oppression, genocide, colonization, and other gross human rights abuses, and is available even in the context of a decolonized country.
The well-established principle of territorial integrity protects the geographical space that legally belongs to a state and is secured by a series of consequential rules, namely, rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, rules forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states, rules imposing respect for borders as they were on the date of independence, and the rule of obligatory non-recognition of territorial changes brought about in breach of international law. The principle serves two basic purposes. It gives legal protection to the legitimate territorial configuration of a state, and so necessarily frowns on secession and annexation/occupation. It confines the exercise of territorial sovereignty to the spatial area that lawfully belongs to the state and, by necessary implication, forbids territorial expansion or other forms of imperialism.
The principle of uti possidetis (literally translated to: 'as you possess, you shall continue to possess') ordains that a state shall continue to possess the same amount of territory it possessed as of a particular critical date which, for de-colonized states, is the date of independence. This principle sanctifies succession to colonial boundaries as they stood on the date of independence by the successor state. Frontiers do not disappear when decolonization or state succession takes place. Nascent states may not therefore change the colonially-inherited territorial status quo by extending their boundaries.
In 1964, African leaders adopted a resolution on Border Disputes among African States by which they pledged "to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence." This principle is reiterated in Article 4 b of the Constitutive Act of the African Union and also in the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union. Arguably, the principle has now crystallized into, and acquired the status of, a rule of African regional customary international law and is therefore binding on African states. Like the principle of territorial integrity, uti possidetis is meant to prevent irredentist claims and expansionism.
Further, further to the furthermost:
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Christ appears in your life right here, right now: one nanosecond after you believe and confess that Jesus is Lord.
https://www.facebook.com/CAYMCameroon
https://www.facebook.com/CAYMCameroon
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 1:45 AM, "Ofege Ntemfac ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com [globalcameroun]" <globalcameroun@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Sequel:
It is thus vile, insensitive and an extreme provocation that after using the francophone concolonial system to position themselves in all sectors of the economic life of the annexed Southern British Cameroons this January fellow would huff and puff about bamileke dominance of the administration of Southern Cameroons as if they got there by merit.This calls for an inquest, a wake and a tribunal.
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:
CUN as another francophone con.It is still under edit and not yet properly bloodied:Pipi DemYou may find this still cut from Den of Lions edifying.
: The French Cameroun Concolonial Agenda
Deconstructing the UPC Reunification HooplaOn April 10, 1948, the radical French Cameroun nationalists met at a bar in the Douala Bassa quarter to form the Unions des populations du Cameroun (UPC), with immediate independence and "reunification" with British Cameroons as the twin policies on its agenda (Richard Joseph 1977: 92). The UPC did not, and could not, however, explain its "reunification" slogan given the specific context of French Cameroun and South Cameroons as separate, distinct and independent Class B UN Trust Territories under UNO mandate and then trust systems. The UPC assumed that its audience had a common understanding of its ill-defined message. At best, and as stated by historian Simon Ngenge, the UPC (and its Southern Cameroons satellite, One Kamerun (OK) Party) did not themselves appraise the full meaning of the words unification and/or reunification. (Ngenge, 2003) At worst, as leaven is to change (or to assimilate to its own nature) so too did the UPC just translate into another francophone Trojan horse contraption hell-bent on the concolonization, annexation, assimilation and plain subjugation of Southern Cameroons under false pretenses![1] The aforementioned can only be the case. Which probably also explains why a first-schedule (1957) decision of the Southern Cameroons government under Emmanuel Mbella Lifafe Endeley was to outlaw the UPC from every inch of the state of Southern-West Cameroon.Hindsight now explicates why the UPC could not put content to its "reunification" sloganeering. The "Reunifcation" agenda was (1) lifted, on the shufti, from the Ewe irredentism in Togoland (2) founded on a false premise and (3) did not meet the "administration union" clause as defined by the Trusteeship Treaty (4) a matter for the UN and consequently the word "reunification" was not on the plebiscite ballot.To date, the UPC has not defined what it meant by "reunification given the circumstances of both French Cameroun and the British Cameroons. Resultantly, since nature abhors a vacuum, the Ahidjo-Biya colonial regimes, which is guilty of corrupting the nationalism which the UPC stood for, in favour of neocolonialism has now translated the UPC "reunification" and Foncha's "unification" into neocolonization, concolonization, annexation, assimilation and plain subjugation of Southern Cameroons, with the full support of the francophone majority.Whereas "reunification" and "unification" and "annexation" and the modalities thereof of "reunification" and "unification" and "annexation" are very precise political science and academic concepts, politicians and even scholarship tend to misconstruction the meaning and the felicity of "reunification" and "unification" as related to the politics of the Cameroons to suit an, often narrow, agenda. This maybe explains why, books and speeches written by the misguided, politicized francophones especially, talk of "reunification" whereas Southern Cameroonian politicians went to Foumban to discuss the modalities of the "unification" of the two Cameroons. Period. The opening speech of the two leaders at the start of the Foumban conference clearly demonstrated that they were not talking about the same thing. Ahidjo was talking about "re-unified" Cameroon while Foncha stuck to "unification." Unification and re-unification are not the same concepts in political science, constitution-making and state engineering. The wonderment remains how exactly Ahidjo expected to structure his doublespeak of a confederation and a federation and a reunified Cameroun when Southern Cameroons was never part of French Cameroun at its creation on March 16, 1961.The prime minister of Southern Cameroons, John Ngu Foncha, himself said so in his opening speeches.During his initial address Ahidjo said:"…In less than three months from now, the union between us shall be an accomplished fact, and we should prepare for it with the faith and the seriousness that such a task requires. We know that whatever may be our desires to sweep aside all obstacles, many technical details remain to overcome as we shall see as the work goes on. This is not to discourage us for we already know that solid constructions are never achieved with a sweep of the hand, but it is essential that, whatever may have been the respective positions before the referendum, that we approach all these questions with total goodwill, that we approach them with neither regret nor bitterness.The majority has clearly taken their stand and there is no other thing to do today than to respect the will of the people by building for them a future within the framework that they have fixed. In a question of this nature there should neither be victor nor vanquished for our mission is not to defend our personal positions but to make the best of our experience and abilities to construct a reunified Cameroun that shall be organized and prosperous.I appeal to all my countrymen from across the Mungo, that whether they be of the majority or the minority, whether they defend positions that were accepted or rejected during the plebiscite, I appeal to them to turn resolutely henceforward towards the future, with all sincerity. The Cameroons of tomorrow needs all its children, and none will be considered redundant who is prepared to participate loyally to the common task.Gentlemen, the principal objective of this gathering is to study together the important outlines of our future constitution. You know that even before the referendum and since then during our talks with Mr. Foncha, we choose a federal framework.Why this formula? It is because linguistic, administrative and economic differences do not permit us to envisage seriously and reasonably a state of the unitary and centralized type. It was because a confederal system on the other hand, being too loose would not allow the close coming together and the intimate connection that we desire. "In reply, Foncha said:"…It is important that at a conference for the drawing up of a constitution for unification we should not remember those who have worked to bring about this great event which is in the process of being fulfilled. It is true that all the tribes in the Republic of Cameroun have contributed in one way or another in unification but the people of Foumban have done it in a special way. They have never taken serious notice of the frontier restriction, but they have continued to move peacefully to the Southern Cameroons where they have freely remained and build and marry. They have very strong family ties on both sides, and it is a credit to Foumban that its boys and girls marry freely with other tribes. The sultan of Foumban himself has taken special interest in unification by his visits and participation in the affairs of Southern Cameroons. It is therefore, most befitting, that the first important conference should be held in Foumban. We congratulate the sultan and his people for the warm welcome accorded us.The present conference is a very important one in the history of unification. For the first time after 44 years of separation and development under different masters with different cultures, we, our traditional rulers, have come together to consider the method of coming together once more. The desire to come together has overcome years of separation and it is my hope that we can overcome all other obstacles that may present themselves in our path to produce a workable constitution which will satisfy the wishes of the people who have voted for it. Not only are the whole Kamerun people looking up to us, but also other unfortunate divided people all over the world are looking to us to lead the way. We should therefore be determined, in the spirit of compromise, to produce good results within the next few days."Unification of two states has a blueprint which ends with a "Treaty of Union" deposited at the UN Secretariat. There is no such treaty anywhere in the world because it does not exist and because the union of Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun is plain concolonisation.Save for rare francophone scholars who recommend a revisit of the unification agenda to create a confederation, most francophones are on all fours with their government in the doomed expedition to concolonize qua annex the independent Southern British Cameroons. In 1961, the same francophone regime tried and failed to concolonize the independent Northern British Cameroons through a jinxed expedition to the International Court of Justice, ICJ.The UPC, to be sure, championed and financed reunification meetings, the majority of which took place in the British Cameroons. Such meetings were not always welcomed in the French Cameroun because of the authoritarianism and intolerance of the French colonial authorities, their hostility toward the radical UPC, and the reunification movement (Ndoh 1996; Ngouamkou 1996).The Anglophone-francophone split was evident yesterday when it came to an application of the UPC re-unification qua concolonization agenda. The UPC invented the One Kamerun (OK) party under Ndeh Ntumazah as a front to keep its political agenda alive. The KNDP and the OK, however, differed very strongly over the construction of unification. While the OK advocated reunification immediate (whatever that means) the KNDP on its part wanted independence for Southern Cameroons first of all, before a gradual process toward reunification by negotiating with president Ahidjo on acceptable terms. Another factor that made alliance impossible was that OK was considered to be the offspring of the UPC and the ongoing terrorist activities in French Cameroon were fresh in many minds. This scared the KNDP leaders considered as men who, apart from their Christian beliefs, hated violence naturally. (Ngenge, )Both Chem-Langhëë and Njeuma say that terms such as "reunification" and unification" tend to be weasel words, deployed by rival politicians, meaning all things to all masters. (Paideuma). The absence of a mutually qua universally accepted circumscription and definition of "reunification" and "unification" in relation to the decolonization process and with particular reference to the Cameroons leads to dangerous equivocation to this day. Meaning "reunification" and "unification meant different things to different peoples. Whereas the Southern Cameroons saw independence in "unification", French Cameroun, even the UPC, like a ravenous lion confronted by a lamb, saw lamb chop annexation and colonization of Southern Cameroons. A hymn to concolonisation was even entone in French Cameroun before Independence: "le 1er Octobre on va saisir le Cameroun du sud" or we shall grab Southern Cameroons on October 1. In truth, the UPC. French Cameroun thus grounded its concolonial agenda on a reconstituted German Kamerun but did not dare demand the return of Chad, Gabon, Central Africa and Congo. The limited their concolonial schemes to the very vulnerable Southern Cameroons.Deaf, dumb and blind contemporary francophone concolonialists qua annexationists qua republicans qua so-called patriots and their equally deaf, dumb and blind collabo confederates have resurrected the recreation of a myth called "Kamerun" with the singular intention of subjugating the Southern British Cameroons based on the devious logic that once upon a time there lived a German colony called Kamerun which colony must be re-enacted. Whereas the Gabonese, the Chadians, the Congolese and the Central Africans will surely confute any Camerounese attempt to recolonize their countries under the false pretenses that there were once upon a time part of German Kamerun.Prof C. Anyangwe's confutation of the re-unification of Kamerun myth as peddled by deceitful francophones is very just (see The African Commission's Ruling in Gumne et al v. Cameroun : Digest and Comment, 1 February 2010)Professor Anyangwe writes:"In its Memorial in Communication 266 complainants asserted and demonstrated that the Southern Cameroons has been annexed by Republique du Cameroun and remains under the colonial occupation of that country. The Commission rightly characterised this development as very serious. Indeed it is, and the people of the Southern Cameroons do not make the charge of colonial occupation lightly. First, the occupying State does not deny that it is in complete and asphyxiating control of the Southern Cameroons and administering the territory following its inherited French system. Over the years it has been fishing for some possible justification of its seizure of that territory. In the 1960s it argued that it simply took over a hitherto separated part of its territory handed over to it by the UN and Britain. When challenged to produce the instrument by which the UN and Britain allegedly ceded the Southern Cameroons to it (a legal impossibility since neither the UN nor Britain were owners of the territory), Republique du Cameroun changed its story. It claimed that its occupation of the Southern Cameroons is by virtue of what it called "reunification on 1st October 1961 following the plebiscite vote on 11 February 1961". But when it was pointed out that one cannot credibly talk of so-called 'reunification' when the Southern Cameroons was never, in the first place, a part of French Cameroun, and when at the plebiscite there was no such option as 'reunification' and there could not have been any, Republique du Cameroun then changed once more the basis of its hopeless claim. It then sought to found its claim on a brief and ill-defined German Kamerun entity and then proclaimed itself the state successor to that entity. But German Kamerun (parts of which are now legally within at least five different countries) lasted only some 25-odd years and was long since extinct. Besides, the political existence of Republique du Cameroun dates not from 1884 but from the inception of French colonial rule in 1916.Further, it is both a legal and a factual impossibility for a country to succeed at independence not to the territory of the immediate predecessor state but to the territory long extinct of a remote predecessor state. Furthermore, the plebiscite itself was a complete refutation of the lie that the Southern Cameroons is a part of Republique du Cameroun. If the Southern Cameroons were a part of that country the plebiscite would have been redundant and the territory simply handed over to Republique du Cameroun like Ifni handed over to Morocco by Spain, Hong Kong to China by Britain and Walvis Bay to Namibia by South Africa. Claim to territory can never be founded on mere geographical contiguity or on a remote, superficial and ephemeral historical connection. That is why the claim of Spain to Gibraltar and the claim of Argentina to the Falkland Islands have never succeeded. The plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons was a clear and loud statement by the international community that the native inhabitants of the Southern Cameroons constitute a people and therefore have the inalienable and continuing right to self-determination."Another group using the reunification concolonial agenda on the sly to foster their notorious tribal expansionism qua land grab is the Bamilekes of French Cameroun. The Bamilekes republicans used up (and are still using up) the "reunification" swansong to invent a contraption called "Poo-graffi" or Grass field Peoples founded on the extraordinary claims that grass field peoples in the North West and the West and the same hence the partition of Cameroons was uncalled for and hence the state of West Cameroun never existed. From thence, the Bamilekes can now flood schools in Southern Cameroons with their children at the expense of the poorer Southern Cameroons children as is the case currently where most schools as well as the economy and administration of the Southern British Cameroons are flooded with the Bamilekes simply because they wield a higher economic muscle. Yet the Southern British Cameroons is nothing but a cash cow to the swarming Bamilekes who pay only lip service to causes important to Southern Cameroonians. For example, the Bamilekes flood schools in Southern Cameroons with their offshoot can have better choices and chances in the global workplace. Whereas in the dog eat dog system in Cameroun today, every francophone or Bamileke child registered in a Southern Cameroonian school, or job, is, per force, at the expense of a bona fide Southern Cameroonian.Take Joseph's Lon Nfi's just observation of the francophone (Bamileke in the main) concolonization policy as obtains in the education subsector:In line with the constitutional biculturalism of the state, government recognized two educational subsystems in 1961, the Anglophone and Francophone subsystems with two examination systems. The existence of two subsystems of education was confirmed in 1993 with the creation of the BACCALAUREAT and G.C.E examinations boards. Unfortunately schools and other institutions of learning in Anglophone Cameroon were later staffed with Francophones who taught lessons and set examinations in the French language and or in Pidgin English. This was the case with technical education which was never given the Anglo-Saxon character in government schools.Government Technical Colleges in Anglophone Cameroon therefore operated under the Francophone subsystem of education since 1972. Such schools had Francophone examinations such as CAP, PROBATOIRE and BACCALAUREAT rather than the G.C.E as their end-of-course examinations. Even after the creation of the G.C.E Board in 1993, Anglophone students from these Government Technical Colleges wrote G.C.E Technical examinations organized by this board as an external examination and not as an obligatory end of course examination. These examinations did not very much promote values cherished by the Anglophones especially self-reliance, civility, moral probity and honesty.With the Francophone character of technical education in Anglophone Cameroon, Government Technical Colleges were therefore staffed with Francophone teachers with a good number of students coming from the neighbouring Bamileke, Mbo and Douala villages in French Cameroon. There was no teacher training college or higher institution to train teachers for technical education for the Anglophone subsystem until 2009 when the Higher Technical Teachers Training Colleges, Bambili was created. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year, Francophone teachers in Government Technical High Schools in Bamenda, Buea, Kumba and Ombe constituted more than 72 percent of the staff strength of these schools. This may be seen as attempts to eradicate the Anglophone culture through the adulteration or pollution of its subsystem of education. Products of these "francophonised‟ Government Technical Colleges could not be identified with Anglophone values of moral probity, obedience and civility. These colleges are known for vandalism and chaos."[2]
[1] The neologism concolonization is ascriptive to the colonization of a colony by a colony.[2] Lon Nfi Joseph, The Anglophone Cultural Identity in Cameroon 50 years after Reunification, International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 2, 121-129On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:CUN is another con artistry qua concolonial claptrap; on all fours with the other gross thievery called PAAWACCEEEEEE, promoted by the impenitent collabo, Kenneth Begheni Ndeh.When I return I will demonstrate to you that your CUN agenda stinks. It smells very much like the fraudulent "Re-unification" thievery foisted on too trusting Southern Cameroonians by the UPC of yore.The same posse has hijacked the SDF.The same posse hijacked the KNDP.That transformation happened when the said SDF let in the francophones and bamilekes and when the corrupt agenda of the francophones and bamilekes (most of the UPC refugees) became the SDF agenda.That Political Movement is the Movement for the actualization of the independence and sovereignty of the Southern British Cameroons and it is for this movement alone that the SDF was created.I could, if I were so inclined, prove with tangible facts that a political movement has indeed been transformed into a political business and then a racket.You invent an article with a very sonorous title based on Scifi and witchcraft: simply because you did not take the pains to investigate the issue and produce facts, sound evidentials, to back your claims. Whereas the facts are out there. Then you nativize and localize and trivialize the issue in your tribal celebration of your fellow bamileke fratas who are just as guilty and Massa John Fru Ndu regarding the massive disaffection with the SDF.Let me attach this other Fela for the enjoyment pleasure of Massa Aaron.Abai ni Mu:You wrote this for the intention of Massa Aaron Nyangkwe (and his fellow Bleeding Bleeders):2. This I like about your article:Ntongtuman Tchouteu January of Mbouda via Kassava Farms per Refugee status,How exactly did you gain access to the Bay that you post therein so freely?
"I know if someone cuts Ni John Fru Ndi, you could bleed."Fela: A dey Look and A dey Laugh!That said, here is the thing.--On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Jean Bosco Tagne <jtagne@gmail.com> wrote:--Well said and it's the truth about the mother .....ker
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2016, at 11:40 PM, enow007 Enow007@yahoo.com [cameroon_politics] <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Pa Fru NdehThe good prof can scold nobody. He has his own small life to live which has been a great struggle like everyone else. I applaud his long struggle. However, the scums of Cameroon are children raised with stolen money like yourself. You have no moral authority to talk against the thievery in Yaounde that by implication you're part of, nor speak about a movement whose victory you stole. Master Jonathan Awasum can continue from here.Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android deviceAugustine Enow Agbor,-------- Original message --------From: "Pa Fru Ndeh PaFruNdeh@YAHOO.COM [cameroon_politics]" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>Date: 5/27/2016 11:30 PM (GMT-05:00)Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] John Fru Ndi of Cameroon's Social Democratic Front: The Transformation of a Political Movement into a Political Business, and then into a Political Racket
I believe you are the one I labeled a few months ago as the Minister of NW/SW Hatred .....
I may not agree with Prof Tatah Mentan's choice of words, but guess what, I support him fully in using those wordsfor the very reason, people like you who represent the SCUM OF REASON on this earth, with what you have saidbelow.
Let me give you a small story. George W. Bush, sent a small boy, I believe in his late 30s or so to the ArmedServices Committee in Congress to request for $12billion for the Afghan or Iraq war. I was watching it on C-SPAN.This young man held a sheet of paper and reuqested $12billion. The people on the armed services committee lookedat each other in total disbelief. Then the Chairman started speaking, he said, between 5 of them in this committee, theyhave over 100 years of experience in Congress and in this committee and have NEVER seen anything like this.They said they were prepared to help him and authorize the funds, and that he should not dis-respect the Armed Committee.The young man should go back and do his work, itemize all items on what the money would be used for and come backto them with an appropriate folder of all the relevant items.
It Prof Tatah Mentan's words amount to the requisite SCOLDING -> so be it!
Some of you are so leftist that when one now speaks the facts and truth directly in your SAD & UGLY faces,it is taken to mean something else. Manyaka peepo dem. Les sabitous. Nonsense.
Blessed Be Cameroon
Pa Fru Ndeh
From: "Agbor Enow Augustine Enow007@yahoo.com [cameroon_politics]" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
To: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: [camnetwork] John Fru Ndi of Cameroon's Social Democratic Front: The Transformation of a Political Movement into a Political Business, and then into a Political Racket
Dear Prof. TatahMentan
Using the scums of the earth to characterize Tchouteu Janvier is irrelevant to the content of the argument in question. The only reason people turn to such low blows is when they do not have an adequate counterargument to make. If you judged his position so lacking and irrational that deserve your scorn, heralding yourself as the enlightened one as opposed to the scums on the social media might is scornful and a self-fulfilled prophesy. Debate and allow the readers to analyze and learn from every position.
Augustine Enow Agbor
The outcome of my life is not more than three lines: I was a raw material I became mature and cooked And I was burned into nothingness. Rumi
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 5/27/16, Immanuel TatahMentan inmentan@yahoo.com [cameroon_politics] <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: [camnetwork] John Fru Ndi of Cameroon's Social Democratic Front: The Transformation of a Political Movement into a Political Business, and then into a Political Racket
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>, "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, May 27, 2016, 3:55 PM
Aaron,In
fact, the social media have made it compelling for one to
discuss with the scums of the earth. Else, I fail to see how
the SDF Movement becomes the biography of John Fru Ndi. The
theoretical and methodological foundations of studying
Social Movements disallow the reductionism displayed in the
Janvier historical distortions and misrepresentations. Boh
dissected this anti-Fru Ndi tract in a way that one does not
need to detain one's attention repeating it. To those
historically ignorant, which is not an intellectual virtue
anyway, any worthy study of the SDF as a Movement that
transformed into that of a political party with its ups and
downs, should use the Social Formations Theory and
Methodology. Hence, one would be saved from opportunistic
presentations and distortions peddled by the ilks of
Janvier. My concern is not with John Fru Ndi, as it is with
a Social Movement wasted by opportunists seeking to share
the spoils of political office endemic to LRC. You see this
myopia all over. The history of LRC becomes the biographies
of Ahidjo and Biya tagged together. Hell No!!!
tatah
mentan
Human
Community=Human Communication=Human Productivity I was led
to understand the value of my anger and my desire to speak
out, through these words from Mary Catherine Hilkert, a
Dominican theologian. She wrote in Speaking with Authority:
Catherine of Siena and the Voices of Women Today:
"Sometimes the words of protest are the only words we can
speak clearly in the face of complex forces of evil woven
into the fabric of our lives and world. We cannot always see
or name the way forward. Further, no liberation front or
political or social program can be identified with the reign
of God. But even the cry of protest is a word of grace that
moves us to resistance and to searching for another way. The
beginning of finding a new path is speaking the truth of
what clearly is not God's will for human life
…."
On Friday, May 27,
2016 7:01 AM, "Herbert Boh herbertboh@yahoo.com
[cameroon_politics]"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Enough tried! Enough said! No one sent
me to redeem anyone from their ignorance. And, as I said, I
am not going to be the co-author of an emotional piece of
slander.
So, be happy, Janvier!
You should have not only your opinion, but also your facts.
Make them up as you go along!
Literary critiques say
something about authors. They are like prisoners. None ever
agrees they committed the crime that landed them in
jail.
Ntumfoyn Boh
Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 27,
2016, at 2:43 AM, Tchouteu Janvier j_kamerun@yahoo.com
[cameroon_politics] <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Wow! This is time consuming. All
the
same, I think there is a Cameroonian song out there that
says "Eh, na me a
find nam..." Na me a truly find this one by asking you
for pointers. For
the sake of historical clarity, I will address the points
raised by Herbert Boh
below.
Dear bro,
Herbert,
As I indicated before, I wrote
this
piece in 2004, a month before the presidential elections of
that year and two
years after the Fru Ndi/ Ngwasiri deal with the CPDM that
buttressed the
system's intellectually dishonest postulation that the
SDF was a Northwest
party. By the two forging the deal with the CPDM against the
genuine interest
of the party, Cameroonians and the close to a century-old
Cameroonian struggle,
Fru Ndi and Ngawsiri, whether knowingly or unknowing
indicated a surrender to
the system, something that would take generation(s) to undo.
It looks like you
still have not realized that. A classic revolutionary mind
would see that in a
spark, especially when comparing that with other situations
in
history---Cameroonian and worldwide.
The writing was done under a great
deal of emotional turmoil because I was basically
transcending from judging a
figure I had regarded as my leader for 12 years,
incarcerated for supporting,
fell out with family and friends for and mortgaging ten
years of my life for a
cause that he had basically derailed by his actions that
may have been
taken because he did not know any better. Once again, this
account is a
profile, not a biography, and it was done without emotional
constraints in a
deeply analytical manner. Still, there were self-worries
of "What if
I am wrong", which is why it never got published until
now, with the side
hope that my hero for twelve years would redeem himself.
Apparently he did not.
You too judged and condemned him following the senatorial
elections/charade.
I know those who worked with Fru
Ndi
during the controversial periods highlighted in the profile
are likely to think
that they too would be judged and perhaps condemned. I
object to judging or
condemning somebody based on association.
Before I address the points you
raised below, I have to point out that these questions
crossed my
mind---"When did Boh Herbert join the SDF; when did he
join the chairman's
retinue and when did he become his aide? "Also, based
on the responses
from figures like Boh Herbert, Martin Yembe, Tatah
Mentan etc., it looks
like there would be a change of guards in the SDF soon with
a deal of immunity
for the SDF chairman of 26 years from the young guards who
would be taking
over?" The responses tell as much as they failed to
tell. Mt response
to the points you raised are highlighted as
follows:
1. You
say of Fru Ndi that he "has been presenting himself,
with tacit and at times open support from the French-imposed
establishment, as the unchallenged or most prominent leader
of the
hundreds of political parties that constitute Cameroon's
so-called
opposition".
Janvier, like Fru Ndi or hate him, he is the undisputed
leader of the
opposition. He has been since the 1990s and it has not
depended on open or
tacit approval of the French-imposed establishment. You must
know, although the
agenda you are pursuing here is blinding you, that both the
French and the French-imposed
establishment abhor Fru Ndi. If Fru Ndi was the man of the
French and
French-imposed system, he would have been president since
1992.
Bro, it is accepted in
revolutionary circles that when your enemy starts praising
you, know that you
have made a mistake. Media, corporations and government work
together in
certain countries, France for one, so when the international
media lauds Biya
all the time for winning elections against the country's
number opposition
leader Fru Ndi, you know right away that he has been used to
valid the fraud
and consciously or unconsciously acts as an enabler and
sustainer of the system.
The system needs him for legitimacy. They make one another
relevant. The mafia
system would never embrace someone who left and then
threatened them. They
would only use and dump him afterwards. The casualty of
course is the
Cameroonian people. Fru Ndi is exponentially richer than he
was in 1990. Yes,
in this camp of so-called opposition parties made up of
former CPDM people who
know that they cannot beat the system but can benefit from
it, Fru Ndi is
number one. When did he come to the
realization that he cannot beat the system? Not in
2014.
2. You
refer to "union nationalists" repeatedly in this
document.
I put it
bluntly to you, Janvier, that you are trying to scam
history by inventing a group of activists that you grew in
your fertile
imagination. You also have this political category that you
refer to simply as
"some" - as in the bullet point which reads:
"By some as a quest
to regain lost privileges".
When did people start
calling themselves Christians. Years after they started
following the teachings
of Christ. Deduce from that analogy. Most in the SDF NEC in
the early 1990s
were convinced changing the system was the way forward,
extoled the national
and civic-nationalist path of the SDF at the time and got
their inspirations
from earlier nationalists like Um Nyobe, Felix Moumie, Nde
Ntumazah etc., nationalists
the custodians of the system called radical nationalists, a
word best used to describe
ethnic nationalists with fascist tendencies. Those unique
people in the SDF are
precisely the union-nationalists. Did you adhere to that
idea?
You wrote
"You also have this political category that you refer to
simply as "some" - as in the bullet point which
reads: "By some
as a quest to regain lost privileges".
What were you thinking. I
had Diakolle Diasalla in mind. Now you are making me to
think harder. Hmm others
also qualify.
3. You
write of Fru Ndi's financial situation as a businessman
after three decades of biz that his "financial position
was not a source
of envy".
By who, may I ask? As the owner of a major residence in
Ntarikon; the owner of
two of West Cameroon's two biggest bookshops; the owner
of a half-finished
office complex on Commercial Avenue; with property in Baba;
and driving his own
4-wheel drive and 504 Peugeot, Fru Ndi was perhaps not as
rich as Janvier but that
does not sound like he was not envied. Yours is a repeat of
the derogatory
reference the CPDM made of "le petit libraire de
Bamenda".
I may disagree with
somebody, but to be spiteful as you insinuated. No my
brother. He was not
wealthy. He was comfortable---Cameroonian standards. Today
he is wealthy. The
wealthy and very rich are the ones often envied.
4. Fru
Ndi's boldness and tenacity you say "verged on
arrogance and self-centeredness".
This is what Janvier is decreeing and it is pure nonsense!
Fru Ndi was already
known for donating books to several secondary schools; he
was paying school
fees for students that were not his relations; and he was
sinking a
considerable amount of his money promoting football as
leader of PWD Bamenda.
Does that sound like self-centeredness?
You will agree with me that
the SDF is a pale shadow of its former self. Tell me that he
doesn't bear any responsibility
for that. He has been in power for 26 years---and tell me if
power and wealth craving
to the detriment of an all-embracing cause that people have
even died for does
not bear the trappings of arrogance and
self-centeredness.
5. When
the SDF was being put together, you claim, Fru Ndi
"spearheaded the sidelining of other non-Northwest
province figures that
were committed to a national force to change the
country".
Shame on
you for not only hatching this lie but for having the
courage to tell (write) it with a straight face. You should
also be ashamed
that you even think Fru Ndi wanted this to be a
Northwest-only thing.
Albert Mukong, a founder of
One Kamerun(OK) with Ndeh Ntumazah insisted on engaging
like-minded advocates
of change in the other provinces against the desire of the
other founding
fathers, some of whom wanted it to be an Anglo affair and
confined until the
SDF was registered and launched. You don't intend to
disagree with me that
Albert Mukong's mission to involve Yondo Black and Ekani
Anicet didn't have the
blessings of his comrades back home, do you? Certainly there
is no file on
that, but that account and variants of it are or were
whispered around within
circles in the SDF.
6. Your
other claim is that when other seemingly more important
"SDF Founding Fathers" turned down "the offer
to become Chairman
or president due to personal fears or worries, Fru Ndi
demanded that he be paid
if he were to take the risk of
signing".
Shame on
you, again! This is what I said you needed to do first:
get the birth of the SDF right first before you pretend you
can write its
history.
Once again, I doubt there
is a file on that, but that account and variants of it are
or were whispered around
within circles in the SDF. Tell me you never heard of
that.
7. After
the SDF was launched, you suggest that Fru Ndi, who had
already left the CPDM in protest at the absence of internal
democracy, had no
idea why an opposition was founded. You refer to an
interview he granted and
want readers to believe that when he was asked "in an
interview about what
he wanted for Cameroon, Fru Ndi's reply was "We
want grass root
democracy."
Now, was
that all he said or this is all what you want to pretend
he said do he can look as stupid as you would like to paint
him?
Good you used the word
suggest there, because you were not paraphrasing me in a
statement that is so
off-on-the-tangent. "We want grass root
democracy." This was the most
important sentence in his interview and it was the headline
on the front page
of the magazine.
8. Here
is more of what you write: "By 1992," say you
"Dr. Digs Asanga and Dr. Samuel Tchwenko wielded the
most influence within
the ranks of the SDF".
Waooooh!
Not even Fru Ndi, right? Given where you are tele-guiding
the history of the SDF, you ignore people like Andrew
Akonteh (to mention only
one). As someone, whose reading of the SDF was obviously
shaped and limited by
what little you could see from Kassava Farm or Half Mile
Limbe, you cannot help
celebrating Dr. Tchwenko "as the party's ideologue
and architect behind
the extension to the Southwest, West and Littoral
provinces". Your memory
is so short you cannot even remember fellow Kassava Farm
leaders like Shallo,
among others. The wonderful leadership from people like the
Dr. who led the SDF
from Douala and our Bamileke brothers, whose solid support
earned the SDF's
nickname of Anglo-Bami party are all
forgotten.
Yes, by 1992, I said. The
SDF chairman's Provincial tours began in December 1991.
But the implantation of
the party at provincial and lover levels were ongoing in
1991 principally in
the NW and SW. Dr. Asanga was the chief weaver at the time
connecting the
strings as the Secretary General. Getting the SW to the side
of SDF with
memories of Foncha still fresh in the minds of
Southwesterners was a Herculean
task accomplished by the "Tchwenko-led
multi-ethnic team" as I wrote, but which you
omitted. I see you are in
the dark on how figures like Ebai Namme (then CPDM Youth
President), Honarable
Ndando (CPDM Parliamentarian), Evaristus Foupoussi joined
the SDF. Or you think
the Bamilekes with memories of the UPC war still fresh in
their minds, saw the
light one day and threw their faith behind the SDF without a
union-like
engagement with their social groups.
As I
said in my
previous reply to you, this work is a profile of Fru Ndi and
not about SDF per
se. Others mentioned are just footnotes on the account of
how he dragged the
party down. Once again, read the account I wrote about the
SDF, and you will
find out the acclaim I had for Akonteh, Shalo etc. (The
Social Democratic Front
(SDF) PART I: The 1990-1997 Historic Party of the Opposition
in Cameroon https://www.amazon.com/Social-Democratic-Front-SDF-PART-ebook/dp/B00FHAGG8I/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=newcamvie-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=V6EVSYWRRMYIKZMW&creativeASIN=B00FHAGG8I
)
I
see that you are
still stuck in your fictional notion of Janvier, Cassava
Farm and SDF. Hasn't my works of the 1990s and time
proven
that my grasp of the concept of a struggle, philosophy of a
cause, political
ideology, history etc., especially over Cameroon, has shown
many of our
self-styled Socrates wanting, including you? Many in the
SDF and beyond identified Dr.
Tchwenko as the party's ideologue not me, but suffice to
say that he was the
best intellectual mind I exercised with and I told him in
2000 that he was
unfortunately, the only revolutionary in NEC, engaged in a
cause that is revolutionary
in its demand but few even understood the enormity of the
task. And when I say
revolutionary, I meant in the classic sense, if you know
what I mean.
During
my dozens of
visits to Bamenda, the "Ntarikon Palace" and other SDF
activities in the NW, I
came to the conclusion that our comrades there had a grossly
misconceived notion
of themselves (Highly inflated) and others in the other
provinces (underlooking
them). Limbe, was the most informed and most organized SDF
bastion in the
country and the only one that could host weekly rallies, a
feat others including
Bamenda tried to emulate and failed.
9. The
real history of Cameroon has a record of parliamentary
elections boycotted by the SDF, among others. And that
ballot and the boycott
had consequences. Your account does not remember that it
happened.
Once again, the account is
a profile of Fru Ndi, like I did one of Paul Biya in 1995
entitled "Paul Biya:
The living Specter that is Haunting Us http://viewsnewcameroon.blogspot.com/2010/09/living-spectre-that-is-haunting-us.html
)
10. In
blind pursuit of your goal of using a historical account to
glorify certain and demonize others, you argue that the
"SDF gained in
popularity for not signing the heavily flawed Tripartite
agreement". And,
lest anyone forgets, you explain that this was "a stand
the Southwest
provincial coordinator and national executive member Dr.
Samuel Tchwenko sold
to the SDF chairman and the rest of the party's National
Executive Committee
(NEC)."
No
surprise there, given what we have already reviewed
above.
You tried hard there, but
intellectual honesty
prevailed. You couldn't bring yourself to say it was
false. Out of curiosity, why do you think while Fru
Ndi was under house arrest, the system (France and Biya)
were prepared to
strike a deal with Dr. Tchwenko to become the Prime Minister
with partial
executive power, select his cabinet, a deal he turned down
and warned the SDF
leadership never conciliate with the system or else see its
soul corrupted? And
why did you think Fru Ndi gave him the free hand to deal
with the system?
Revolutionaries do not betray an ideal, a cause that is the
meaning of their
lives. Chemfor who was the go-between for the government
pointed out that the
system recognized him as the second most influential in the
SDF at the time.
11. There is more. You
write: "By the end of 1991, Southwesterners had been
won over into
the SDF by the Tchwenko-led multi-ethnic
team." Unlike
the Fru Ndi one-ethnic team of North-westerners,
right? Don't
put words into my mouth.
12. Why
stop there? Unable to, you add: "In a network
led by Dr. Samuel Tchwenko, the majority of the francophone
populations that
supported the historic UPC were brought over into the SDF,
giving the party a
national outlook and civic nationalist semblance in a
growing national ideal
called Cameroonian Union-Nationalism. And it was these
civic nationalists
in the party that gave Fru Ndi the financial support and
confidence, so that by
the summer of 1992, the Fru Ndi-led SDF had more than 70% of
the national
support of Cameroonians."
What is false about
that?
You could
follow the logic of your allegations. Why not change the
title into "The SDF that Dr. Samuel Tchwenko
Built"? Fru Ndi will
love you for the popularity figure of +70 percent that you
give him by 1992.
Can you tell readers what the science is behind the poll you
are citing here?
Or, did you just pull that figure out of the hat? Did you
just invent that
figure the same way you invented those group of Cameroonians
or is it a network
you call "Cameroonian Union-Nationalists"? Then,
there are those you
call "Francophone union nationalist" whose hearts
Fru Ndi apparently
won by speaking Pidgin-English.
Oh, you didn't say it is
false. WHO ARE THE KAMERUNISTS (UNION NATIONALISTS OF
CAMEROON http://viewsnewcameroon.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-are-cameroons-union-nationalisyts.html)?
Gives you an insight into that category of
Cameroonians.13. You
also write: "By July 1992, beefed up by a
broad circle of intellectuals and ideologues drawn from
across the national
territory and provided with a national ideal of Cameroonian
union-nationalism
that he purported to embrace at the time, Fru Ndi was
unquestionably the
greatest asset to the struggle and with that came
self-confidence."
I see you have no
concept of a clearly defined national idea. Read "WHO
ARE THE KAMERUNISTS (UNION
NATIONALISTS OF CAMEROON http://viewsnewcameroon.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-are-cameroons-union-nationalisyts.html)?
To gain a greater insight, that is. For a cause to be
successful, an exhorting literature and national ideal are
needed to be in
place.
On Thursday, May 26,
2016 10:49 PM, "'Mannu T.' anomah007@yahoo.com
[cameroon_politics]" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
"Power
corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely and Unlimited power is apt to
corrupt the minds of those who possess
it"
From: 'Pa Fru
Ndeh' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
"camnetwork@yahoogroups.com"
<camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>;
"ambasbay@googlegroups.com"
<ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 26,
2016 6:12 PM
Subject: Re:
[cameroon_politics] Re: [camnetwork] John Fru Ndi of
Cameroon's Social Democratic Front: The Transformation
of a Political Movement into a Political Business, and then
into a Political Racket
Janvier
Chando Tchouteu,
Have
you read Professor Tatah Mentan's submittal a few
minutes ago? Blessed
Be Cameroon
Pa Fru Ndeh
From: "Tchouteu
Janvier j_kamerun@yahoo.com
[cameroon_politics]" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
To: "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com"
<camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>;
"cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
"ambasbay@googlegroups.com"
<ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 26,
2016 11:19 AM
Subject:
[cameroon_politics] Re: [camnetwork] John Fru Ndi of
Cameroon's Social Democratic Front: The Transformation
of a Political Movement into a Political Business, and then
into a Political Racket
Dear
Herbert,
Thanks
for your two cents on this presentation. It is fundamentally
about Fru Ndi and how he, as the leader of the SDF, led it
down the drain. Rather than just summarily rejecting the
veracity of the work, your position would be more
intellectually appreciated even by those who disagree with
you if you are dialectical in your approach. That is, taking
out the points you think are wrong piecemeal and countering
them with points that you consider truthful or factual.
I
indicated earlier that I wrote the work in 2004 and added a
few paragraphs recently to bring it up to the times. So, I
don't see anything to change there, unless someone or
people prove that I erred.
Back
in the first half of the 1990s when I started writing
political essays on that phase of the struggle, I remarked
to a top NEC member that the SDF was susceptible to
betrayal due to the fact that the SDF meant different things
to different people. I and many people who joined the SDF in
1990 were civic-nationalists, otherwise called Cameroonian
union-nationalists, and identified with the historic UPC of
1946-1971, just like many in the NW SDF leadership were CPDM
before 1990. I am likely to deduce that you were an
Anglophone or Southern Cameroonian nationalist back then.
Since a common goal of getting rid of Biya was the
overriding objective, those hues were overlooked by most
people until 1997. The hues produced pro-SCNC guys like Nfor
Nfor, straightlaced revolutionaries like Dr. Tchwenko,
union-government guys like Professor Nkui, Professor
NKamndou, Professor Asanga etc, etc.
My
account of the historic SDF is "The Social Democratic Front (SDF)
PART I: The 1990-1997 Historic Party of the Opposition in
Cameroon. https://www.amazon.com/Social-Democratic-Front-SDF-PART-ebook/dp/B00FHAGG8I/ref=sr_1_42?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1464275798&sr=1-42&refinements=p_27%3AJanvier+Tchouteu"
All the best,
Janvier Chando
On Thursday, May 26,
2016 10:32 AM, "Herbert Boh herbertboh@yahoo.com
[camnetwork]" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Dear
Janvier,
Just
to set the record straight, I do not agree with you. The
facts are not straight. There is even a heavy dose of
fiction to it.
To write the
history of the SDF, a minimal requirement would be to get
the facts about its birth right. That you do not even begin
to do.
If
you argue the case that the SDF was, in fact, some
incarnation of the so-called historic UPC with factions
and/or movements within its top ranks that never existed,
except as the author has germinated them in his brain and
birth them on paper, then there is a serious omission of
fact.
My hope is
that this is some DRAFT on which you are still working. It
is a good start to what could be a good book, but a good
book will fly on the solid facts it will provide to
readers.
I
have to congratulate and thank you for spending time doing
it and will stay my critique until you have a finished,
fact-checked and vetted product. Putting the DRAFT as it is
under the scrutiny required of a book review would be
failing to acknowledge that I have understood it to be a
work in progress.
Good
luck!
Ntumfoyn Boh
Herbert
On Thursday, May 26,
2016 2:27 AM, "Mishe Fon mishefon@yahoo.com
[camnetwork]" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
This
is a well written piece although full of factual deceptions.
Your historical perspective is admirable but it would serve
all of us readers better if some of us do not end up
considering this kind of history tweaking as
"Intellectual Fraud or Political Masturbation". I
will pick one simple example (as an active participant of
the Political Movement of the nineties myself) to explain
where you lost me in your excellent rendition of your SDF
history. You cite profusely, a certain group of individuals
(mainly Francophone Intellectuals) who joined the SDF as
"Cameroon Union Nationalists"; I must confess to
you that as a staunch SDF militant (at that time and a
provincial executive + being a strong financial
contributor based in Yaoundé), I am
hearing of this "CUN" wing of the Party for the
first time. If you talked of CUN in UPC politics, I will be
with you 100%. Pah "Njoh" Fru Ndi is not
a saint and has made his fair share of political blunders
(some of which you eloquently highlight in your
"historical narrative" BUT I still don't see
how Pah "Njoh" Fouda Ndi has blocked YOU, ME or
any other Cameroonian from doing what they feel should be
done to FIX the country. Talk is cheap. The regime in
Yaoundé has created about 180 so-called Political Parties,
most of which we only hear about when decreed
"S"Elections are approaching.
That
is how you will discover characters like Jean Njeunga,
Daniel Soh Fone, Albert Dzongang, Dakole Daissala, Koumbin
Bilitik, Isaac Feuzeu, Hubert Kamgaing, Marcus Lontouo,
Hameni Bieuleu, Tabi Owono, etc who will either resurface
from where-ever they had been hiding or surface afresh,
making a complete mockery of what "DemocraZy" is
all about, vociferating outlandish abracadabra nonsense
over the airwaves (pocketing each their 29 million CPDM
Bribe money for participation. Massa Tchouteu, you want to
write History, by all means write one which is real and not
"Story Telling genre Arabian Nites". For the 2011
Presidential elections, ELECAM claimed that there were 4.5
million registered voters. Paul Biya gave himself 3.7
million, Fru Ndi was given 520,000 and the 21 other
Presidential Candidates shared approximately 270,000 (for
their hard work). Remember we've been told the
population of Cameroon hangs around 26 million (without any
credible census data). You do the Math and tell me what is
wrong with that scenario.NB:
My dear brother; This is not to start a fight nor do I want
to belittle your excellent job. It is a simple
"academic" critique with no harm
intended.Tah
Mfar Mishe Fon
John Fru Ndi of Cameroon's
Social Democratic Front:The Transformation of a Political
Movementinto a Political Business, and then
into aPolitical
Racket
Janvier
Tchouteu
Acknowledgement
This account is dedicated to the
loving memory of all the Cameroonians who suffered and died
in their selfless commitment to the cause to found the New
Cameroon.
Cameroon's Greatest Political
Betrayal
For over two-and-a-half decades now,
John Fru Ndi has been presenting himself, with tacit and at
times open support from the French-imposed establishment, as
the unchallenged or most prominent leader of the hundreds of
political parties that constitute Cameroon's so-called
opposition, a rag-tag group that purports to be engaged in
the post 1990 phase of the Cameroonian struggle interpreted
differently:By union nationalists as a
continuation of the five-decade struggle to bring down the
French-imposed system or establishment and found a New
Cameroon that is democratic, free, liberal, independent,
progressive and modernBy liberals and moderates as a
struggle to unseat Paul Mvodo Biya, the French puppet that
manages the French-imposed system in CameroonBy Anglophone nationalists as a
struggle to end the decades of being marginalized by
Francophone dominated Ahidjo-Biya regimes (though not
Francophone majority-backed)By some as a quest to regain lost
privilegesand by others as an opportunity to
partake in the possible benefits the Biya regime and
establishment offer renegades, opportunists and
fortune-seekers.
Having lived three decades of his adult
years as a businessman, Fru Ndi's financial position was
not a source of envy. But what most appreciated about him
was his tenacity and boldness, even though many people
turned a blind eye to the fact that his tenacity and
boldness verged on arrogance and self-centeredness
(considered by many as a necessary quality for a business
man). It is not surprising therefore, that in 1989 when the
Social Democratic Front (SDF) of Cameroon was being put
together, Fru Ndi spearheaded the sidelining of other
non-Northwest province figures that were committed to a
national force to change the country. It is not surprising
still that when more prominent members of the inner-circle
of the group called "The SDF Founding Fathers" turned
down the offer to become Chairman or president due to
personal fears or worries, Fru Ndi demanded that he be paid
if he were to take the risk of signing in as the head of the
opposition party that was about to be registered and
launched.
With the launch of the SDF in May
26, 1990, Fru Ndi became a source of awe, taking almost the
entire credit for it, even though he did not spearhead the
crafting, creation and launch of the SDF. Months after, when
asked in an interview about what he wanted for Cameroon, Fru
Ndi's reply was "We want grass root democracy." It was
clear to the insightful that he lacked a clear vision at a
time that the SDF was outgrowing the purpose of its founding
fathers. But with the multitude of intellectuals,
civic-nationalists and ideologues that swelled the ranks of
the SDF after its launch, there was never a shortage of SDF
insiders to give the far-reaching meaning to the purpose of
the SDF's creation. By 1992, Dr. Siga Asanga and Dr.
Samuel Tchwenko wielded the most influence within the inner
ranks of the SDF— Dr. Siga Asanga as Secretary General,
the brain in the group of founding fathers, and as Fru
Ndi's elder relative; and Dr. Samuel Tchwenko as the
party's ideologue and architect behind the extension of
the party's reach to the Southwest, West and Littoral
provinces.
When the National Coordination of
Opposition parties(NCO) was formed in 1991, Fru Ndi's
disputed popularity amongst Cameroonians at the time came to
the forefront when the steering committee that was created,
elected Samuel Eboua (head of the National Union for
Democracy and Progress—NUDP) as the chairman, with John
Fru Ndi(SDF) as vice-chairman, and Adamou Ndam Njoya (head
of the Cameroon Democratic Union—CDU), Jean-Jacques Ekindi
(Progressive Movement—MP), Charles Tchoungang (OCDH) and
Djeukam Tchameni (CAP-Liberte) as members of the managing
committee. When the NCO started the "Operation Ghost
Towns", following the student protests led by the
Student body called "Parlement" in
the Spring of 1991, the Cameroon opposition appeared solid
and united, even though most of the heads of the opposition
parties had been former members of the ruling party less
than two years before. The objective of the "Ghost Town"
operations was to use strikes to close down the Cameroonian
economy during the week, and allow commerce to function only
on the weekends, in order to force the Biya regime to
convene a Sovereign National Conference to come up with a
new constitution and a transparent electoral process for
Cameroon. By the end of October 1991, the Biya regime was on
its knees, and so decided to call for "TRIPARTIE" talks
to resolve Cameroon's political impasse with
pre-conditions to be met by the Coordination of Opposition
Parties (NCO) and the government. The NCO called off the
"Ghost Towns" operations, but the government failed to
respect its obligations. For that reason, the coordination
pledged to boycott the talks, only to attend it
later.
It was in the aftermath of the
TRIPARTITE that the SDF gained in popularity for not signing
the heavily flawed Tripartite agreement, a stand the
Southwest provincial coordinator and national executive
member Dr. Samuel Tchwenko sold to the SDF chairman and the
rest of the party's National Executive Committee (NEC).
By the end of 1991, Southwesterners had been won over into
the SDF by the Tchwenko-led multi-ethnic team; the UPC (the
historic upholder of Cameroonian nationalism) was in
disarray after having been taken over by renegades; and
Samuel Eboua, the unifying head of the NUDP had been booted
out by Bello Bouba Maigari, the sly and former Prime
Minister of Cameroon. In a network led by Dr. Samuel
Tchwenko, the majority of the francophone populations that
supported the historic UPC were brought over into the SDF,
giving the party a national outlook and civic nationalist
semblance in a growing national ideal called Cameroonian
Union-Nationalism. And it was these civic nationalists in
the party that gave Fru Ndi the financial support and
confidence, so that by the summer of 1992, the Fru Ndi-led
SDF had more than 70% of the national support of
Cameroonians.
From early 1992, Fru Ndi became
instantly recognizable as the symbol of the Cameroonian
struggle for democracy, prosperity, freedom and liberty. In
his traditional Northwest regalia, he was recognized in the
Northwest province as one of their own; in his use of
English language, he identified with Anglophones; while in
his rhetoric in Pidgin-English that was often translated
into French, he warmed himself into the hearts of
Francophone union nationalist, especially in those areas
where the historic UPC fought against the Ahidjo-French
forces in the late 1950s and 1960s.
By July 1992, beefed up by a broad
circle of intellectuals and ideologues drawn from across the
national territory and provided with a national ideal of
Cameroonian union-nationalism that he purported to embrace
at the time, Fru Ndi was unquestionably the greatest asset
to the struggle and with that came self-confidence. That is
why he declared his willingness to run for the upcoming
presidential elections without discussing it in the National
Executive Committee of the SDF, even though no changes had
been made to the heavily-flawed laws and electoral process.
Nevertheless, Fru Ndi swayed the National Executive
Committee over to back his intentions, and with the deep
support of the civic nationalists otherwise called the
union-nationalist who constituted more than seventy percent
of the party at the time, he won the October 1992
presidential elections against the incumbent Paul Biya.
But the French-backed Biya regime declared the incumbent
Paul Biya as the winner. Many in the party hierarchy,
especially the union-nationalists, blamed Fru Ndi and his
clique for withdrawing the petition to the Supreme court, a
petition that called for the cancellation of the elections.
This petition was filed during the counting process in
objection to the heavily flawed nature of the elections,
even though based on results from the field at the time, Fru
Ndi was leading in the vote count. A cancellation and a
rerun would have been done with a more prepared, more
organized and more determined SDF backed by a population
that would have been more convinced that the establishment
was about to be dismantled. However, the Fru Ndi/Carlson
Anyangwe withdrawal of the petition emboldened the Biya
regime to add more fake reYou 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.
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
--
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
--
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment