Thanks Justice for coming in strongly. I think our brother Tumassang is over killing it when he juxtaposes municipal and international laws. The I C J or other UN body shall be bound to revisit some of their decisions if we take up arms. Who will stand idly by and say the matters had been consummated? Can our learned brother tell us why The perpetrators of Nazi Germany are still being tracked and arrested
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
--I think Mr. Fon needs answers and we should not make itt sound as if International law is a straight jacket. On the contrary, it was and is the flexibility that accompanies Int'l law that makes our case an issue worthy of revisiting by the UN and former Trustees.The fact that Britain did separate Northern Cameroons from Southern Cameroons and the UN bought into it to the extent of administering the UN Plebiscite as such makes Southern Cameroons case a legitimate one, in so far as the people demand their self determination based on pre-independence politics, which, for instance gave them the Southern Cameroons Independence Constitution Order-in-Council, 1960.I am one Ambazonia who has bought into the Prof. Chia arguments on condition there are not impositions from the UN, because, like former impositions, we will be going the wrong way not letting the people have a say: the people have a right to know and say what they want.I think it would be ridiculous for someone to think that because Southern Cameroons eventually became a defacto state, distinct from Northern Cameroons, that the letter of the law was not voilated to allow them claim what they claim as a separate state.If violations were permit to thrieve based on consumation, then what stops La Republique du Cameroun from making the same or similar argument?One thing I know for sure is that according to the Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda (All Agreeements/treaties must be honoured), a new law quashes an old one and since the General Declaration Granting Independence to All Colonial and Other Peoples of December 13, 1960 was never implemented for British Cameroons, and the plebiscite for both Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons which had been scheduled since October 1960, it means the plebiscite, by the new law of Dec. 13 1960 was illegal and of no legal significance at all.Therefore, UN concerns now are to rectify the situation so that in case we decide to go into union with our neighbors east or west, the law guiding such unions and protecting the right for annulment in case of a voilation, should be followed.In this regard, while I favour a broadening of Ambazonia to include its greater hinterlands, which British Declassified docs have clearly shown intriguous and malicious behavour by trust territory administrator, it is just plain simply right for us to re-unite with our brothers of the Northern Cameroons.We Southern Cameroonians have made much noise of the lack of political awareness in Northern Cameroons. On the contrary, I think evidence has shown that they were more focused on demanding unification with the Southern Cameroons to attain independence, while we were busy practicing devisive multiparty and vulnerable politics that led LRC to annex our country with ease.If want a better future for ourselves and the generations to follow, we must protect our sovereign rights as defined by The General Assembly Declaration Granting Independence to All Colonial and Other Peoples of 1960 and demand UN implement same and nothing less. Afterall, if we were made to believe lies that we federated with LRC for all this while, what makes us to think that doing same with our brethrens of the northern Cameroons would be a bad thing when indeed we share the same boundary treaties with them and our fate has been better than theirs? We equally share UN 1608 with them.Judging from Tumasang's reasoning below, if the division of British Cameroons was illegal, then nothing legal can come out of an illegal process and even more so, like our demise with LRC, we had no international boundary with Northern Cameroons till date! By insisting Southern Cameroons gets independence without Northern Cameroons, we invariably will be shooting our own feet, if not our head with our own guns. What was the use of tracing the maritime boundary to Lake Chad if the territory so afflicted and basterdized by neighbors was not one?Bottom-line: Ambazonia's northern hinterlands do not yet have an international boundary and to me, that boundary is at Lake Chad! Restoration of the British Cameroons, AKA Ambazonia is a better and more legal, as well as justified position to take if Ambazonia includes Northern Cameroons!.Justice M. MbuhTHE LEGACY OF AMBAZONIA (UN Trust Territory of British Cameroons): The Parliamentary Opposition, ...forged for itself a new role noteworthy for its dignity; and the government,..never attempted to withdraw...the legal recognition that was its due. Thanks to this...West Cameroon has won for itself the prestige of being the one place in West Africa (if not all of Africa) where democracy, in the British style, has lasted longest in its genuine form. --Prof. Bernard Nsukika Fonlon, The Task of Today, p. 9
From: 'charto_us' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
To: Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDING
Cher Mr Amougou, J'accuse reception de votre email. Je suis en transit. J'ai note l'absence des noms dans le jugement. Je pense qui ca pourais du au erreurs de la part de la Commission. Je vais introduire en requete pour rectifier cette situation qui ne tient pas compte des correspondences de la Commission meme qui sur la liste y inclu les veuves des vos colleagues decedes.
C. TakuSent from my Wiko RAINBOW 4GOn 6 May 2016 21:19, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:--Hi,I have answered this question many times before. Our own Professor Chia like many before and after him is confusing municipal law with international law. These illegalities or irregularities have been consummated and cannot be reversed. The ICJ cannot order restitutio in intergrum now so the argument is legally flawed. Please check the Northern Cameroons case in the ICJ where La Republique du Cameroun sued Britain that they had no right to divide the territory and all that and the court decided that all the transgressions have been consummated and the UN by noting the results of the referendum and accepting the results of the two territories the issue is closed and the court cannot order a reversal.The UN might intervene on moral basis but not on legal basis for this issue had already been dealt with legally.RegardsTumasang
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:56:48 +0000
From: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Subject: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDINGHow can I get anybody here to explain the divergence of opinions between what Prof Chia is doing and this Ambazonia struggle? I ask because according to professor Chia's reasoning, going by a UN charter (I have just forgotten it) as a trusteeship territory the administering authority - Britain had no right to alter the boundaries as established by the UN. But that was done without the UN repealing that charter that forbade such alteration of boundaries. And even though the trusteeship mandate had long expired any retroactive action must still invoke that charter as a guiding principle. By never repealing that charter it meant that it still stood and even when violated it never meant that the violation could be left to stand. So was there any document which proves that Britain had a special authorization and could therefore legally alter the boundaries of this territory and still be in conformity with the UN charter that forbade alteration? I am asking this because in altering the boundaries the British were in violation of that UN charter. By violating this UN charter they illegally created two territories out of one and by some means obtained permission from the very UN to organise separate plebiscites to hand them over to both French Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria respectively. Now if this was infact a violation of the UN charter, it therefore means what later became Southern Cameroons and then West Cameroon as well, as the Northern part of the entire trusteeship territory were never supposed to exist. If so what is Ambazonia trying to re-establish - an illegal state created out of an illegal act by the British? Will it work? Can somebody kindly explain how Professor Chia's argument is faulty here? I would like to see what authority Britain had to violate the UN charter and then divide the territory into two parts. If such a document does not exist, then the UN will never recognize any state called Ambazonia. It had never been any distinct colonial possession by any colonial power except jointly with the Northern part and under the UN. They must be restored back to the original trusteeship state it was before the violation by Britain.So can anybody explain anything to the contrary so that we know how to support with conviction and hope?Fon Emmanuel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment