Prof Chia is at liberty to explicate the changed context, the content and the intent of the changed paradigm to us all.
Article 9:
This area shall be administered in accordance with the laws of the mandatory as an integral part of his territory… The mandatory shall therefore be at liberty to apply his laws to the territory under the mandate subject to the modifications required by local conditions, and to constitute the territory into a customs, fiscal, or administrative unions or federation with the adjacent territories under his sovereignty or control, provided always that the measures adopted to that end do not infringe the provisions of this mandate.
Because of its class B status, Britain and France were not obliged to prepare the inhabitants of the territory for eventual self-government or independence and therefore did not make any commitments to achieve these goals.
--Prophet FEN/Ofege,
I do not have time to be wasting. Any people, be they Northern Cameroonians or Southern Cameroons can fight for their self determination. I do not have a problem with that but the basis of the fight CANNOT legally be because Britain illegally partition the territory into Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons for that is now a non start. Prof Chia is basing his claims on many things but this division one is a flawed base.
Southern Cameroonians have the right to seek their self determination different and separate from Northern Cameroons because despite the illegality of dividing the territory, the illegality has been consummated and that is it, period. This is international law not domestic law.
The issue of division of the territory was decided in the Northern Cameroon case where La Republique du Cameroun sued Britain and the court made its decision that restitutio in integrum CANNOT be ordered period so the issue about division is now Res Judicata.
If you want evidence from the case, then, in the Northern Cameroon case in the International Court of Justice it was said:
"When, on the other hand, the breach of the agreement has been finally consummated and it is physically impossible to undo the past, the Applicant State is no longer in a position to ask the Court for more than a finding, with force of res judicata, that the Trusteeship Agreement has not been respected by the administering Power.In the case in point the violations referred to have been finally consummated, and the Republic of Cameroon cannot ask for a restitutio in integrum having the effect of non-occurrence of the union with Nigeria and non-division of the Territory, or fulfilment of the objectives laid down in Article 6 of the Agreement, or observance of Resolution 1473; it can only ask for a finding by the Court of the breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement committed by the Administering Authority."
THE ABOVE ANSWERS FEN'S QUESTION ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE ISSUE OF DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY IS OVER. PROF CHIA CAN KEEP HIMSELF BUSY IF HE WANTS. UN MIGHT COME IN ON MORAL GROUNDS NOT LEGAL GROUNDS SINCE THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AND IT IS RES JUDICATA. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO ASK ME THE QUESTION AGAIN. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, BELOW ARE SOME EXCEPTS FROM THE NORTHERN CAMEROON CASE JUDGMENT.
"The submissions of the Federal Republic of Cameroon are as follows: may it please the Court to find in favour of the submis sions of its Application instituting proceedings and, in particular, to adjudge and declare:
that the United Kingdom has, in the application of the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946, failed to respect certain obligations directly or indirectly flowing therefrom on the various points set
out above."
The Application lists the following complaints:
"(a) The Northern Cameroons have not, in spite of the text of Article 5, § B, of the Trusteeship Agreement, been administered as a separate territory within an administrative union, but as an integral part of Nigeria.
(b) Article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement laid down as objectives the development of free political institutions, a progressively in creasing share for the inhabitants of the Territory in the adminis trative services, their participation in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the Territory. These objectives, in the opinion of the Republic of Cameroon, have not been attained.
(c) ) The Trusteeship Agreement did not authorize the Adminis tering Power to administer the Territory as two separate parts, contrary to the rule of unity, in accordance with two administrative systems and following separate courses of political development.
(d) The provisions of § 7 of Resolution 1473 relating to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons from that of Nigeria have not been followed.
(e) ) The measures provided for in § 6 of the same Resolution in order to achieve further decentralization of governmental functions and the effective democratization of the system of local government have not been implemented.
(f) The conditions laid down by § 4 of the Resolution for the drawing up of electoral lists were interpreted in a discriminatory manner, by giving an improper interpretation to the qualification of ordinary residence.
(g) Practices, acts or omissions of the local Trusteeship authorities during the period preceding the plebiscite and during the elections themselves altered the normal course of the consultation and in volved consequences in conflict with the Trusteeship Agreement."
The formulation of the grievances of the Republic of Cameroon is stated in differing language in the Application, its Memorial, its Written Observations and Submissions and its Final Submissions. It suffices at this point, and in the light of what has already been said, to quote from the Final Submissions the prayer-
"that the Court should adjudge and declare that the United King dom has, in the interpretation and application of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration, failed to respect certain obligations directly or indirectly flowing from the said Agreement, and in particular from Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 thereof ".
It was not to this Court but to the General Assembly of the United Nations that the Republic of Cameroon directed the argu ment and the plea for a declaration that the plebiscite was null and void. In pa ragraphs numbered 2 and 3 of resolution 1608 (XV), the General Assembly rejected the Cameroon plea. Whatever the motivation of the General Assembly in reaching the conclusions contained in those paragraphs, whether or not it was acting wholly on the political plane and without the Court finding it necessary to consider here whether or not the General Assembly based its action on a correct interpretation of the Trusteeship Agreement, there is no doubt-and indeed no controversy- that the resolution had definitive legal effect. The plebiscite was not declared null and void but, on the contrary, its results were endorsed and the General Assembly decided that the Trusteeship Agreement should be terminated with respect to the Northern Cameroons on lJune l96r. In the event, the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement was a legal effect of the conclusions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of reso lution 1608 (XV). The Applicant here has expressly said it does not ask the Court to revise or to reverse those conclusions of the General Assembly or those decisions as such, and it is not therefore neces sary to consider whether the Court could exercise such an authority. But the Applicant does ask the Court to appreciate certain facts and to reach conclusions on those facts at variance with the con clusions stated by the General Assembly in resolution 1608 (XV).
If the Court were to decide that it can deal with the case on the merits, and if thereafter, following argument on the merits, the Court decided, inter alia , that the establishment and the maintenance of the administrative union between the Northern Cameroons and Nigeria was a violation of the Trusteeship Agreement, it would still remain true that the General Assembly, acting within its acknowledged competence, was not persuaded that either the administrative union, or other alleged factors, invalidated the plebiscite as a free expression of the will of the people. Since the Court has not, in the Applicant's submissions, been asked to review that conclusion of the General Assembly, a decision by the Court, for example that the Administering Authority had violated the Trusteeship Agreement, would not establish a causal connection
between that violation and the result of the plebiscite.
Moreover, the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement and the ensuing joinder of the Northern Cameroons to the Federation of Nigeria \Vere not the acts of the Cnited Kingdom but the result of actions of the General Assemblv, actions to which the United
Kingdom assented.
When, on the other hand, the breach of the agreement has been finally consummated and it is physically impossible to undo the past, the Applicant State is no longer in a position to ask the Court for more than a finding, with force of res judicata, that the Trusteeship Agreement has not been respected by the administering Power.
In the case in point the violations referred to have been finally consummated, and the Republic of Cameroon cannot ask for a restitutio in integrum having the effect of non-occurrence of the union with Nigeria and non-division of the Territory, or fulfilment of the objectives laid down in Article 6 of the Agreement, or observance of Resolution 1473; it can only ask for a finding by the Court of the breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement committed by the Administering Authority."
In the course of his oral argument, Counsel for the Applicant said :
"The Republic of Cameroon considers in fact that, by administering the Northern Cameroons as it did, the Administering Authority created such conditions that the Trusteeship led to the attachment of the northern part of the Cameroons to a State other than the Republic of Cameroon."
In the Cameroon White Book already mentioned, it is said that "failure to separate the administra tions of the two territories destroyed an essential guarantee of impartiality and effectively sabotaged the plebiscite". The White Book continued by saying:
20
From: ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 04:04:09 -0700
Subject: Re: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDING
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
CC: free_ambazonians@yahoo.comDo 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.
--
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.
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