BACKGROUND
Why did Britain divide the trust territory?
Why did Britain cancel the 1959 Plebiscite?
Why did Britain force the Northern British Cameroons into Nigeria?
The fate of the Banso, Kaka, Chamba, Jukun and generic Tikar people in the Northern British Cameroons
Another Inconclusive Decolonisation.
STILL CUT
The United Nations Plebiscites in the Northern Cameroons: PostColonial Issues and Challenges in Sardauna Local Government
Area of Taraba State, Nigeria
Lenshie, Nsemba Edward1 and Gambo, Jiebreeal Yakubu2
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Taraba State University, Jalingo, Taraba State, Northeast, Nigeria
Forced into A Marriage of Convenience
To celebrate a centenary (1914-2014) to mark both formative and consolidation period of Nigeria, without situating the place of the Northern Cameroons in her political history will be inconsequential; in fact, it will a historical disconnect if the government failed to historicise and recognise the amalgamation of the Northern Cameroons with Nigeria which dates to the 1961 plebiscite.Sardauna LGA which was a part was to also participate in the plebiscite under the umbrella identity as the 'Mambilla District'. For the purpose of effective plebiscite, trust territories were separated from Nigeria under adopted Resolution 1352 (XIV) of the United Nations (Nfor, 2010). Dr. Djalah Abdoh of Iran was made plebiscite Commissioner and had organised the Northern Cameroons into 334 plebiscite stations, where on the 7th of November 1959 the people were expected to determine their political future. The questions presented were as follows:
i) Do you wish the Northern Cameroons to be part of the Northern Nigeria when Federal Republic of Nigeria becomes independent?
ii) Are you in favour of deciding the future of the Northern Cameroons at a future date?
During the plebiscite, only the male gender was allowed to participate. The Northern Nigerian elites and their erstwhile colonialists had confidently asserted that given the homogeneity of the Northern Cameroons citizens with the Northern Region was going to yield explicitly a result that was going to be in their favour.
According to Houser (1959), 'Surprisingly, the results of the plebiscite announced in November 9, 1959 indicated that, the people of the Northern Cameroons wished to have the trusteeship continue until a later time'.
What was unspoken on the mind of the people of the Northern Cameroons was the dissatisfaction with the plebiscite for not having a 'third alternative' on the questionnaire, which may have read: 'do you wish to achieve independence without joining both the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the La Republique du of Cameroun?'
From the plebiscite result (Table 1), indicating out of the registered population of 10,098 people, a majority population of 7,353 as against 2,745 people voted in favour of the deferment of the plebiscite to show their dissatisfaction. It was evident that the citizens of the Northern Cameroons were not ready or willing to join Nigeria. Therefore, it was only left for the United Nations to determine further what steps to take to ensure the political future of the people.
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:
We have two eminent scholars of the University of Jalingo, in the Northern British Cameroons, present in these chambers.I recognise:
Lenshie, Nsemba Edward and Gambo, Jiebreeal Yakubu
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Taraba State University, Jalingo, Taraba State, Northeast, NigeriaThey may wish to add flesh unto these matters. If not I will post their work for our education.Their work is titled. They may also wish to explain to us why two weeks ago a number of citizens from the NBC were arrested in Bamenda en route to a Chia Seminar and why they were speedily released upon presentation of their UNO State Identity Card.On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:Do you know their pain?What right do you therefore have to shut the door upon a suffering people?We have cases in the world today where peoples with less than 1% of the rights to claim self-determination as present with the Northern British Cameroons have indeed fought and won their rights to be free.Whereas the UN Charter ought to be a supreme and inviolable law and, furthermore, it is not for the ICJ or whatsoever or whosoever (including you) to decide upon the rights of self-determination with regards to the good peoples of the Northern British Cameroons.Maitre Tumasang.Do you have any Treaty of Union or Amalgamation, or anything, between the British Norther Nigeria and the Federal Republic of Nigeria?On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:Study it closely.Take a look at this map, will you.And as I try to understand why there is this much suffering and neglect among the Jukun people who live on both sides of the frontier in today's Nigeria and today's Cameroun.Dear Emmanuel,You are sent by the Lord God himself to ask that questionI am not a lawyer.I do not hold brief for Prof. Chia.I am the Chairman of the Chair of the Ways and Means Commission of SCAPO, but I do not write here in that capacity.SCAPO will make its position on the critical question you ask in due season.But this is what SCAPO knows.The Abuja High Court Ruling of 2002, spearheaded by SCAPO, was a Tomslin Order ie a court ruling by mutual consent of both the Nigerian gvt and the Southern Cameroons initiators.After initially agreeing to the terms, the Nigerian gvt, starting with the Obasanjo administration seems to have reneged on its commitment and has obviously taken sides with French Cameroun because of the Northern British Cameroons. Reason why in subsequent attempts at peaceful solution to the thorny issue at table, SCAPO considers both Nigeria and French Cameroon as occupiers of British Cameroons, period.I do also write as one with family in both the Northern British Cameroons and in the Southern British Cameroons.I do also write as one who was present - in Ghana Street - right in my father's house, when Prof Chia first arrived with his finding and where alongside Dr Yongbang, Fai Visha, the late Feko, etc we attempted to explicate that position to interested citizens.I do recall that that days later the judicial authorities in Bamenda were in hot pursuit of one Ntemfac Ofege for offering the locus for that meeting, etc.My life has been one long harassment since then.I do recall that, in violation of all we stand for, someone came to that meeting with a camera and a videotape of all attendees conveniently found itself to the authorities.I will permit myself to make some inputs here based on notes taken as I struggle to understand my own history.
A Tomlin order is a court order in the English civil justice system under which a court action is stayed, on terms which have been agreed in advance between the parties and which are included in a schedule to the order. As such, it is a form of consent order.--On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:47 PM, 'JusticeMbuh' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote: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.
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.
--
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
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