Re: @FEN/Ofege: RE: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDING

Ntemfac and Dr Tumasang, you both have made valid points for different reasons. Your points may be valid depending on the individual circumstances of each case. This observation is informed by Article 59 of the statute of the ICJ which states:
"The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case". The cause of action as well as the parties to the conflict matter as far access to the court and its exercise of jurisdiction are concerned.
Chief C.Taku

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 5/7/16, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: @FEN/Ofege: RE: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDING
To: "ambasbay" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "FREE AMBAZONIANS" <free_ambazonians@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2016, 8:10 AM

Maitre
Tumasang,
Once
more I am not a lawyer to be arguing the fine points of law
with a law Professor such as yourself.
I just state the
right to self-determination is a different kind of animal.
You will soon enough discover that a lot of water has gone
under the bridge thanks to the unfortunate death of a UN Sec
Gen.
Prof Chia is at liberty to explicate
the changed context, the content and the intent of the
changed paradigm to us all.
We are in a
POLITICAL PROCESS

However, the point
you make is well expressed as per Article 9 of the League of
Nations Covenant.


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.




On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:52
AM, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
wrote:



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.com

Maitre
Tumasang.
Do you
have any Treaty of Union or Amalgamation, or anything,
between the British Norther Nigeria and the Federal Republic
of Nigeria?
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.
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.
What right do you therefore have to shut the door
upon a suffering people?
Do you know their pain?

On Sat,
May 7, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear
Emmanuel,
You are sent by the Lord God himself to ask that
question
I 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.
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.
Take a look at this
map, will you.
Study it closely.


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.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

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. Mbuh
 THE 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. Taku
Sent from my Wiko RAINBOW 4G
On 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.
Regards
Tumasang

Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:56:48
+0000
From: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Subject: ASKING FOR UNDERSTANDING

How
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.

--
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.