Re: [africanworldforum] Re: Kamerun, PAAWCE, UNION CAMEROUN as the New Face of Concolonial Deception: Re: [globalcameroun] 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

Mark Bareta and Fon Sama shared a link.
Cynthia Nguni, a very close-family friend to the victim (Linda) updated that she has had sleepless night for the past 72 hrs working with the North Carolina Medical Team on…
bareta.press
Henry and Harry Ngwa, Graduating from one of the Prestigious School District in Houston, Texas. CyWoods High School, Cypress Fairbanks ISD!
Elizabeth Ngwa's photo.
LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare
Comments
Ntemfac Ofege
Write a comment...
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:36 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:


Begheni Ndeh,
When he surfaced in power Adolf Hitler had grand designs to recover German Colonies in Africa.
He went to war about the matter and lost.
By inventing the UN and the Trusteeship systems and the Decolonization processes the rulers of this world told ancient and future colonial masters....NO in very emphatic terms.
Furthermore, the UN Charter and the UN system and the emphasis on self determination likened colonization and related ventures akin to War Crimes.
May I proclaim that we have all read how one Kenneth Jean Begheni Ndeh and his pal (one Tchouteu January) intend to foster a COLONIAL Enterprise involving 1. British Cameroons 2. Gabon 3 Chad. 4 Congo and 5 Central African Republique:
Hence scheming a War Crime:
All in the name of a DEAD entity called KAMERUN.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml
United Nations
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples ... proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to ... of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,.

United Nations Global Issues

www.un.org/en/globalissues/decolonization/
United Nations
Today, fewer than 2 million people live under colonial rule in the 16 remaining ... The international trusteeship system was established by the UN Charter.

The United Nations and Decolonization

www.un.org/en/decolonization/
United Nations
The United Nations and Decolonization ... proclaimed the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, including a specific plan of action.

The United Nations and Decolonization - General Assembly Resolutions

www.un.org/en/decolonization/ga_resolutions.shtml
United Nations
General Assembly Resolutions. Historical General Assembly Resolutions. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:17 PM, 'Pa Fru Ndeh' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear All,

Anyone who was been following the PAAWCE Open Agenda for the conquest of the Presidency of the United Republic of Cameroon,
knows fully well that we seek to liberate Kamerun.  All of it.  We start with West Cameroon and East Cameroon.

I would like to THANK Ntemfac Ofege for reproducing Professor Carlson Anyangwe's stateful arguments below.

 
The Spokes Person
PAAWCE Presidency


From: "Ofege Ntemfac ntemfacofege@YAHOO.COM [globalcameroun]" <globalcameroun@yahoogroups.com>
To: "globalcameroun@yahoogroups.com" <globalcameroun@yahoogroups.com>; ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; SDF <cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com>; shesausa <shesausa@yahoogroups.com>; Southern Cameroon <southerncameroons@yahoogroups.com>; Big group <saesa@yahoogroups.com>; africanworldforum <africanworldforum@googlegroups.com>; FREE AMBAZONIANS <FREE_Ambazonians@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: cameroon_politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:35 AM
Subject: Kamerun, PAAWCE, UNION CAMEROUN as the New Face of Concolonial Deception: Re: [globalcameroun] 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



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:

[1] Professor Carlson Anyangwe. Interview with Abakwatimes in 2012
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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


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:
Pipi Dem

You may find this still cut from Den of Lions edifying.
It is still under edit and not yet properly bloodied:
CUN as another francophone con.

: The French Cameroun Concolonial Agenda

Deconstructing the UPC Reunification Hoopla
On 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, 121-129




On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:
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?

2. This I like about your article:
You wrote this for the intention of Massa Aaron Nyangkwe (and his fellow Bleeding Bleeders):
"I know if someone cuts Ni John Fru Ndi, you could bleed."
Abai ni Mu:
Let me attach this other Fela for the enjoyment pleasure of Massa Aaron.
Fela: A dey Look and A dey Laugh!
That said, here is the thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The same posse hijacked the KNDP.
The same posse has hijacked the SDF.
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.
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.
 

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 Ndeh 

The 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 device
-------- 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

Augustine Enow Agbor,
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
…."
...

[Message clipped]  



--





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 "AfricanWorldForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to africanworldforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to africanworldforum@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/africanworldforum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/africanworldforum/CAKL30K%3Dm9sErsKtOsKW%2BqDqis6UDMVg4TvsN12FgyuQfUMfsjQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Unknown ● Friday, June 3, 2016

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
College & Education © 2012 | Designed by