Re: @FEN: RE: PROOF THAT THERE IS NO UNION

Dear Julius:

 Yes!!!! Whether it's called General Council or Ad Hoc Committee...all we need is action - immediate action.  To move forward, add and/or subtract ideas contained in my suggested modus operandi and let action be taken while we await the results.

Christopher Atang, Ph.D.,                          

5507 Pipingwood Drive                        

Houston, Texas 77084                                                                                               

"People may not remember exactly what you did, or what you said - but they will remember how you made them feel."             - Anonymous

---

From: Julius Acham <achamj07@gmail.com>
To: ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: @FEN: RE: PROOF THAT THERE IS NO UNION

Ambazonia is a geopolitical Name synanymous to Southern Cameroons. Secondly there is a Governing Council (GC) in place as I read on this forum. Your suggestion as good as it is, should be a call to the GC. In my view the GC was born in time to face this immediate threat. At this juncture, Let the GC lead. We should all rally around GC to liberate the Republic of Ambazonia. All and sundry, for once rally around and UNITE.  http://www.ambazonia.org/

JA

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 2:45 PM, 'Atang Christopher' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (ambasbay@googlegroups.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

Dear Mola:

Thank you for clarifying the myth that surrounds the so-called "union" between the two countries.  You have orchestrated these views in numerous speeches and write-ups designed to educate Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) about their inalienable right to Complete Independence, in stead of languishing in this false "union" with La Republique du Cameroun.  Pa Zama in his e-mail of June 21, 2016 also clarified the pronouncements of the architects of this "false union" to thousands of Southern Cameroonians in 1993 during AAC1 at Mount Mary Maternity in Buea.

You will agree with me that it is useless for us to now sit back and lament and/or lick our wounds as we consider all what we have lost (and are still losing) since our forceful engagement in this unholy and illegal 'Njumba' marriage arrangement with La Republique du Cameroun.  So, we must now decide to engage in practical actions to redeem ourselves!  In other words, instead of cursing the darkness, let us light candles to enable us see our way through this nightmare.

One of Mola's solutions is mass mobilization of the population to demonstrate disgust for the illegitimate "union."  He clearly stated that "The Southern Cameroons case has now entered the UN process via the African Union and the way forward is for the majority of the People of Southern Cameroons to seek redress via the African Union to exercise their unquestionable and inalienable right of self- determination."

With reference to the above, permit me to suggest that we form an Ad Hoc Committee of at least eleven (11) people to expedite the whole process and "Plan our way Forward." I further suggest that this committee be composed of the following persons: Mola Litumbe, Justice Paul Ayah, the Chair of SCNC, Southern Cameroons Lawyers Association, representatives of the University of Buea and Bamenda, Ambazonia, SCYL, SWELA, Northwest Elites Association, Chief Charles Taku, the Facilitator of "The Way Forwards Network", and others I might have inadvertently left out.  This group will select a Chair to guide its deliberations.  The Committee may meet via tele-conferencing.  The terms of reference is to map out immediate mobilization strategies would expeditiously earn Southern  Cameroons  - Ambazonia's legitimate independence within x-number of months. 

Mola J. J. Jackai of Dallas Texas (because of his technology expertise) is kindly requested to generate a Conference Call number and Pass Code for the above suggested persons.  Mola Litumbe is kindly requested to summon the maiden meeting for an executive to be put in place.

Finally, crying out about our marginalized status, for example, the robbing of our Marketing Board, destruction of Powercam, 'killing' Cambank,  the contamination of the Southern Cameroons Police Force, flirting, with the intention of eliminating our legal and educational systems, the recent diabolical proposal of moving the economic backbone of the Southern Cameroons - the CDC - to Yaounde, etc., etc. will not help advance our case.  We should regard this as one last call to mobilize pragmatic action by every Southern Cameroonian (Ambazonian) to be  spearheaded by the Ad Hoc Committee. 

Since finances will be needed to facilitate the whole process, the Ad Hoc Committee is requested to work out (through existing structures), the modalities of collecting the sum of a least only US$20.00 (twenty US Dollars) from each Southern Cameroonian (Ambazonian) in the Diaspora, and only 10,000cfa from each Southern Cameroonian Ambazonian at the home base to finance this emancipation last thrust.  The Ad Hoc Committee is requested to suggest 'collection strategies' to facilitate the collection of these funds from the various persons. 

Do you have any suggestions that would help improve on my proposal to advance our case?

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES!!!

 

Christopher Atang, Ph.D.,                          

5507 Pipingwood Drive                        

Houston, Texas 77084                                                                                               

"People may not remember exactly what you did, or what you said - but they will remember how you made them feel."

- Anonymous

---

From: Njoh Litumbe <njohl42@gmail.com>
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: @FEN: RE: PROOF THAT THERE IS NO UNION

If, as learned Dr Tumasang concedes, there is no union written
Agreement between the two Cameroon parties, there is therefore nothing
that could have been filed at the General Secretariat of the UN. To my
mind, the long expose' on case law based on non-registration of
treaties is pathetically misplaced, for there is no written Agreement
to talk about, nor does anyone register an agreement  that does not
exist.

In the absence of any agreement between the parties, LRC violates the
UN Constitution in several other respects, to wit:

1. It violated Art. 103 of the UN Charter (Constitution) to which it
became bound as from 20 Sept 1960, by passing a domestic law (Law No.
24/61) in its Parliament on 1st Sept 1961, fraudulently alleging to
have created a federation with the UN trust territory of Southern
Cameroons. Art 103 of the UN Charter renders that law invalid, as a UN
trust territory lacked capacity on that date to enter into any
contract  without UN participation and/or that of the British
Administering Authority.  The LRC domestic Law was in direct violation
of Arts 102/103 of the UN Charter which renders impotent any
conflicting law in a member state.

2. LRC fraudulently cited Nigeria before the ICJ (one of the six
operating organs of the  UN) in the absence of a Union Agreement
incorporating Southern Cameroons as part of its territory.  In the
result, LRC obtained judgment over Bakassi which is located wholly in
Southern Cameroons territory, by fraudulent misrepresentations, thus
impacting adversely on the Greentree Accord.

3.  The People of Southern Cameroons cited La Republique du Cameroun
before the African Commission of Human & Peoples' Rights in Banjul.
It took the Commission six years to render a decision, part of which
required LRC to engage the People of
Southern Cameroons into constructive dialogue, under the auspices of
the African Commission, to resolve the Constitutional issue as to
whether the two parties were one country. The Commission's decision
was approved by the African Union heads of State and Governments.  LRC
has contemptuously refused to comply.

The Southern Cameroons case has now entered the UN process via the
African Union and the way forward is for the majority of the People of
Southern Cameroons to seek redress via the African Union to exercise
their unquestionable and inalienable right of
Self-determination.

Mola



On 6/20/16, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Divine, not sure if you are an agent provocateur or what since you are
> asking questions about things which have been properly settled by myself on
> these for a in the past. For example on the issue of Union treaty and Non
> registration in accordance with UN Article 102, I wrote the below mail in
> the past. I hope after reading it you will not ask any one again about the
> issue of registration of a Union Treaty (if any exists) at the UN.
>
>
> Southern Cameroons: UN Article 102 Union Treaty Registration and its
> Applicability: A Five (5) Clue Forensic Approach
> Martin TumasangBarrister at law, Advocate/Notary Public/Solicitor,
> International Arbitrator, Chartered Valuation Surveyor, Principal Quantity
> Surveyor, Claims Quantum Consultant.Barrister [Supreme Court of England and
> Wales, Inner Temple London], Solicitor/Advocate/Notary Public [Supreme Court
> (La Republique du Cameroun/Southern Cameroons)], MRICS [Chartered Surveyor,
> Member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London], MCIArb
> [Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London], RRVal
> (Registered Valuer, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London], ABIFM
> [Associate of the British Institution of Facilities Management, UK],
> [Registered Arbitrator of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, DIAC,
> Dubai], Master class trained: Delay and Disruption Claims, [Abu Dhabi UAE],
> Planning/Scheduling trained, [Chicago Training and Consultancy, Abu Dhabi,
> UAE], FIDIC Silver book trained [FIDIC Qatar], Doctor of Philosophy [PhD
> Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield], Master of Laws (Distinction) [LLM
> (Distinction) Professional Legal Pactice, BPP Law School, BPP University
> College London], Master of Laws [LLM with merit, Oil and Gas Law, Robert
> Gordon University, Aberdeen], Master of Science [MSc Construction Law and
> Dispute Resolution, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds], Master of Science
> [MSc Property Valuation & Management, Sheffield Hallam University,
> Sheffield], Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) [BPP Law School, BPP
> University College London], Post Graduate Diploma [PGDip Property Valuation
> & Management, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield], Graduate Diploma
> Legal Studies (GDL/CPE) [University of Hertfordshire, London], Bachelor of
> Science [BSc (Hons), 2nd Upper, Quantity Surveying, OAU (University of Ife),
> Osun State].  IntroductionI have dealt with the issue of UN Article 102 as
> it applies generally and as it applies on the Southern Cameroons case in the
> past so I will avoid going into unnecessary details unless where necessary.
> I realise many Southern Cameroonian lawyers, politicians, and liberation
> fighters still do not understand how to interpret the UN Article102 clause
> despite the case law and scholarly discourse on it that I have increasingly
> provided to teach and help them through. Considering that adaptation and
> renewal to changing realities are the sine qua nons of any liberation
> struggle, and mindful of our present impasse and the need to abandon old and
> hackneyed views, legal, political or strategic and adopt new approaches, I
> have therefore decided to look at the UN Article 102 again, together with
> what the UN itself says on the issue and to show where the evidence
> preponderates on this issue. UN Article Article 102 states"Every treaty and
> every international agreement entered into by any  Member of the United
> Nations after the present Charter comes into force  shall as soon as
> possible be registered with the Secretariat and  published by it.No party to
> any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in
> accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of  this Article may invoke
> that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations." CLUE 1A
> careful reader will realize that the instructive part of the Article in item
> 1 above says "shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat
> and published by it.""Shall" as used above in the instructive part of UN
> Article 102 is an obligatory and mandatory word conveying a command and
> compulsion. It is peremptory in nature and content. It is a word of
> authority imposing a duty. The word 'shall' as employed in the above context
> denotes an obligation or a command and gives no room for discretion. By its
> nature, it is mandatory and one cannot wriggle out of same. It imposes a
> duty. Where a provision stipulates that a thing shall be done, it goes
> without equivocation that a peremptory mandate is enjoined. Even Municipal
> courts have dealt with this issue of "shall" e.g. Bamaiyi v.
> Attorney-General, Federation&  Ors. (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 727) 468 at page
> 497; (2001) 90 LRCN 2738.This means that the UN wants all treaties to be
> registered in the Secretariat and for them to be published to prevent secret
> diplomacy particularly at that time when the internet and other media for
> rapid dissemination of information had not been invented or were not widely
> used unlike today.A careful look at the "Sanctions" part of the Article in
> item 2 above, shows that it states " No party...not registered...may invoke
> that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations".
> "May" as used above in the "Sanctions" part of UN Article 102 lacks
> mandatoriness, command or compulsion. It is NOT bereft of discretion and the
> Organs of the UN including the International Court of Justice have the
> discretion to accept if they deem fit such treaties which are not
> registered. This shows that if there was/is a Union Treaty between the two
> Cameroons but it is not registered, it does not mean the non registration
> automatically disqualifies the treaty from being presented at the UN or
> International Court of Justice.
> CLUE 2Below is a slide from a UN Seminar on UN Article 102. I hope this will
> help our Southern Cameroon lawyers under the issues involved.Article 102(2):
> Sanctions and Penalties [from UN Seminar]•"No party to a non-registered
> agreement may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United
> Nations (e.g., the International Court of Justice).
>
> •The Article 102 sanction seems to apply only to the parties of an
> unregistered agreement
> Third parties have invoked unregistered treaties; parties in the middle of
> an ICJ proceeding have registered an agreement used in a defense and the ICJ
> allowed." Source:Registration of Treaties under Article 102 of the Charter
> of the United Nations: Seminar on the undertaking of Treaty Actions for
> Treaties, November 11-12 2009,UN Headquarters, (Muriel Djella Ogandaga,
> Arturo Requesens, Associate Legal Officers, Treaty Section).It is my
> submission that the above from the legal officers of the UN might help the
> Southern Cameroonian lawyers, politicians and freedom fighters understand
> some technical points that seems to be eluding them.It is stated clearly
> that if UN Article 102 sanctions is to apply, it would apply only to the
> parties of an agreement but third parties can still invoke such unregistered
> treaties in front of the UN including the ICJ.This means that if La
> Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons had a  Union Treaty that is
> not registered, all other nations can use the treaty and recognize the union
> and invoke it legally in front of the UN, and in front of the international
> Court of Justice. If the whole world can legally recognize a union based on
> an "Unregistered Union Treaty", how will Southern Cameroonian lawyers,
> politicians and freedom fighters sustain the argument that the union is not
> legal?. It is impractical and impossible.
> CLUE3The most damning indictment of UN Article 102 is that a party can
> register a treaty even in the middle of a case to invoke it and the ICJ will
> accept. The above UN Seminar clearly states "Parties in the middle of an ICJ
> proceeding have registered an agreement used in a defense and the ICJ
> allowed". This alone collapses the whole thesis of Southern Cameroonian
> lawyers, politicians and freedom fighters on this issue. If there is a Union
> Treaty (which there is none) and the only issue is "UN Article 102 Non
> Registration", then La Republique du Cameroun can register such Union Treaty
> even during proceedings in the ICJ to defend the  Union. The consent of
> Southern Cameroons is NOT needed to register such a treaty. It follows that
> UN Article 102 will not and cannot help the Southern Cameroons case. It has
> been an issue of chasing after the wind for the past 25 years with this UN
> Article 102 obsession. It is an argument based on wrong law, and/or improper
> foundation.
> CLUE 4In order to further understand the interpretation of UN article 102 in
> a case where the UN is involved like that of Southern Cameroons, it is
> important to look at Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations
> which is a precursor to UN article 102 and this provided:"...No such treaty
> or international engagement shall be binding until so registered....".
> For my older readership, I will ask them to cast their minds back to 1962.
> This is one year after the Southern Cameroons problem started. In this year,
> you will remember the case of "South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South
> Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21
> December 1962: I.C. J. Report; 1962, p. 319." In this case, South Africa
> objected that its mandate in South West Africa is not a treaty binding since
> it was not registered in the league of Nations in accordance with article 18
> of the League of Nations (Same situation of non registration in accordance
> with UN Article 102 in the Southern Cameroons case).
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated:
> "..Moreover, Article 18, designed to secure publicity and avoid secret
> treaties, could not apply in the same way in respect of treaties to which
> the League of Nations itself was one of the Parties as in respect of
> treaties concluded among individual Member States.... It is the
> implementation of an institution in which all the Member States are
> interested as such. The procedure to give the necessary publicity to the
> Mandates including the one under consideration was applied in view of their
> special character……"Based on the above, the involvement in the UN in
> ordering the Plebiscite, noting the results and ordering finalization of the
> terms of the Union, and the re-accreditation of ambassadors by Yaounde gave
> the necessary publicity to the union if there was one hence there was no
> hidden diplomacy and non registration is non fatal on this count. The UN was
> too closely involved in the process to vitiate the whole enterprise based on
> UN Article 102 on registration.
> CLUE 5The issue of registration of treaties was summarily dealt within the
> Qatar vs Bahrain case. Qatar where I lived and worked for sometime had
> border delimitation problems with Bahrain and they had some agreement to
> refer the whole border problem to the ICJ. Bahrain letter said that the
> Minutes of agreement to refer the whole problem is not binding because Qatar
> waited until June 1991 before it applied to the United Nations Secretariat
> to register the Minutes of December 1990 under Article 102 of the Charter;
> and moreover that Bahrain objected to such registration.Bahrain also
> observed that, contrary to what is laid down in Article 17 of the Pact of
> the League of Arab States, Qatar did not file the 1990 Minutes with the
> General Secretariat of the League; nor did it follow the procedures required
> by its own Constitution for the conclusion of treaties. This conduct showed
> that Qatar, like Bahrain, never considered the 1990 Minutes to be an
> international agreement. The problem finally went to the International Court
> of Justice (ICJ) and in Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
> between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J.
> Report.7 1994. p. 1 12, the ICJ would observe that an international
> agreement or treaty that has not been registered with the Secretariat of the
> United Nations may not, according to the provisions of Article 102 of the
> Charter, be invoked by the parties before any organ of the United
> Nations.But the ICJ went further to say:"Non registration or late
> registration, on the other hand, does not have any consequence for the
> actual validity of the agreement, which remains no less binding upon the
> parties. The Court therefore cannot infer from the fact that Qatar did not
> apply for registration of the 1990 Minutes until six months alter they were
> signed that Qatar considered, in December 1990, that those Minutes did not
> constitute an international agreement. The same conclusion follows as
> regards the non-registration of the text with the General Secretariat of the
> Arab League. Nor is there anything in the material before the Court which
> would justify deducing from any disregard by Qatar of its constitutional
> rules relating to the conclusion of treaties that it did not intend to
> conclude, and did not consider that it had concluded, an instrument of that
> kind; nor could any such intention, even if shown to exist, prevail over the
> actual terms of the instrument in question. Accordingly Bahrain's argument
> on these points also cannot be accepted. The Court concludes that the
> Minutes of 25 December 1990, like the exchanges of letters of December 1987,
> constitute an international agreement creating rights and obligations for
> the Parties" SummaryIf there was a Union Treaty (which there is none)
> between La Republique Du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons, then:Non
> registration of the Union Treaty will not be fatal to a joining (if there
> was one) since the UN was intimately involved in the processes,
> advertisement was given to the purported joining by re-accrediting
> ambassadors.All other nations who are third parties will not be affected by
> the non registration and based on such Union Treaty can recognize the union
> and invoke it in front of the UN and the ICJ hence making it untenable to
> continue saying the Union (if there was one) is not binding.La Republique du
> Cameroun can register such a Union Treaty even during a case in the ICJ as
> has been done in the past, a point that Southern Cameroonian (Municipal)
> lawyers cum politicians have NEVER considered as they continued to misapply
> UN Article 102 for the past 25 years.The Qatar vs Bahrain case has shown
> BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND ALSO BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that despite non
> registration of a treaty in a regional instrument or in the UN, the treaty
> is still binding on the parties to the treaty such as La Republique du
> Cameroon and Southern Cameroons (if there was a treaty) QEDThe above
> resolves the issue once and for all that UN Article 102 non registration
> does not affect the Union between Southern Cameroons and La Republique du
> Cameroun (if there was a Union and/or Union Treaty). Any unnecessary
> argument with the type of above preponderance of evidence can only come from
> a busybody who perhaps wants to save his or her legacy by trying against all
> the odds to hide and bury our legal mistakes of the past instead of
> correcting them and moving on.Southern Cameroons shall forget about this UN
> Article 102 misadventure and continue its arguments in another manner. When
> I first brought up the issue that there could be a joining with La
> Republique du Cameroun even if there is no Union Treaty provided there is a
> tacit agreement based on the intention of the parties, if the intentions
> were achieved, and if the parties accepted the outcome, and that UN Article
> 102 non registration is of no moment on the joining issue, my family back in
> Cameroon was threatened with death but in hindsight, the law I espoused
> although seemingly against Southern Cameroons, is a blessing for it prevents
> Southern Cameroons from spending another possible 25 years on arguments
> based on wrong international law and/or wrong interpretation of
> international law. The municipal mindset of Southern Cameroonian lawyers,
> politicians and freedom fighters who try to translate or transfer the
> mindset to international law is the root cause of all the legal mistakes of
> Southern Cameroons. Clinging on UN Article 102 was and is a legal mistake so
> we abandon it and move on to other sustainable arguments.
>
>  Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:42:18 +0000
> From: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> To: denatem@yahoo.com
> CC: camnetnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroup.com;
> ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: PROOF THAT THERE IS NO UNION
>
> Mr Atemkeng,You have hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the reaction
> I wanted.  I said I wanted proof that there is no document on the union
> between the two states, and you have exactly answered my question.  But you
> have to do better.
> Firstly the actual response I needed was an explanation how a union between
> nations come about and how Cameroon's so called Union does not respect that.
> I know there could be various ways States choose to be united with one
> another and how they make the unions legal.  I wanted someone to elaborately
> explain why the Cameroon Union does not  conform to that - and that would be
> one proof I asked for. This a government that is not known to be keeping
> records of any sort and so getting any proof from anywhere in Cameroon is
> completely out of the question. But the SCNC must have done enough - more
> than an individual like myself could have possibly done to establish that
> fact by assuring itself that no such agreement is lodged anywhere in the
> UNGS as required by the UN charter. I think it is the responsibility of the
> SCNC to exact a written statement from the UNGS officially denying that any
> such document exists! That should one strong proof Mr Atemkeng.
> Secondly you did not respond to my next inquiry about the role of the UN in
> the whole matter. If no agreement has ever been submitted into the UNGS as
> required by UN charter regarding a union between the two states
> Southern(West)Cameroons and East Cameroun, it therefore means that according
> to the UNGS the Federated State of Southern Cameroons and East Cameroon is
> still the way it was before 1961 plebiscite. So why do we need the UN to
> assist us to  reassert our autonomy to the state it was before decrees by
> Ahidjo and those by Biya brought us to where we are today? Since there was
> no Union agreement between the states  we have never been obliged therefore
> to respect Presidential decrees and so the SCNC has every right to bring out
> an elaborate master plan on a new administrative structure as they see fit
> and then a new government to run the country. So my question here is - how
> come the SCNC does not want to do it since there is no legal Union between
> the two states? What is stopping them?You just mentioned that some people
> have been killed and many jailed and continue to be incarcerated to for
> daring to question the status quo. Is it the fear of being killed or jailed
> that that is stopping leadership of the SCNC from declaring our autonomy? If
> not what is the problem? What more does the SCNC want from us Southern
> Cameroonians? Instead of explaining everything you  failed to detect  my
> feigned ignorance about  the whole struggle and then concentrated on it
> trying to make a fool of me. But no problem,  I knew what I wanted to get
> from any person who chose to respond. I have got it from you but not enough
> anyway and I still love your response.
> I think what the SCNC should do is to compile a document backed by a
> statement from the UNGS  explaining in detail to the Southern Cameroonians
> and the world at large how there has never been a union between Southern
> Cameroons and East Cameroon. This document should also explain in detail the
> various political manoeuvres by Ahmadou Ahidjo and then Paul Biya that
> resulted into an annexation of our territory. If these document carries
> irrefutable facts, the government of La Republique would not be able to
> contradict it and even if they continue to brutalize and persecute the SCNC
> leadership and the people as well, they cannot challenge the document, and
> the world would be on our side. The way I see it, the SCNC needs only one
> thing from the UN - and that is a written statement from the UNGS that no
> such Union agreement exists between Southern Cameroons and East Cameroon.
> The UNGS does not even need to make a statement for or against the SCNC
> efforts to reconstitute the federation. Since there is no such union
> Agreement, there would be no need to make a statement on that. It is the
> SCNC that has the right and obligation to do it. The situation is far less
> complex than any other in the world. Southern Cameroon has a recognized
> international boundary and there would be no need for any third party to
> assist in redrawing any new boundaries. Government institutions had been
> existing and it needs only some modification to suit the times.
> So now Mr Atemnkeng incase I did not make myself clearer through my feigned
> ignorance, I wanted anybody to try and see the how confused the ordinary
> Southern Cameroonian is concerning the status of the struggle. You turn out
> to be that anybody. I like your response but only to an extent.
> So kindly explain if you can why the SCNC would not compile such a document,
> and use it to declare that Southern Cameroons  has decided to disregard all
> the decrees from Ahmadou Ahidjo to Paul Biya that were attempting to alter
> the 1961 federation as suggested by the UN. If they would not do this, there
> must be something else stopping them. And it is that something else I want
> to know. If there is no something else, how does the SCNC  want the
> situation to present itself before the pre-1961 federation is can
> reconstituted? The decrees by these East Cameroon Presidents should never
> have affected us from day one and as such coupled with the absence of any
> document about anything called union between us, our status remains as it
> was in 1961- no more no less and the SCNC has the obligation to declare it
> so immediately. Unless there is an obstacle that we do not know.
> FEN
>
>
>
>        From: Atemkeng Denis <denatem@yahoo.com>
>  To: Divine Rhyme <hittback@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "camnetnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetnetwork@yahoogroups.com>;
> Cameroon_politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroup.com>; Ambasbay
> CamerGoogleGroup <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
>  Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 10:55 AM
>  Subject: PROOF THAT THERE IS NO UNION
>
>
>
> Dear Fen,
>
>
> My greetings.
>
>
> I am not surprised that it makes you sick
> any time you hear that there is no legal union between West Cameroon and
> East
> Cameroon. And you go ahead to weave your own theory why the SCNC says so.
> Then
> you say to yourself: "I absolutely know nothing about it. ...But can anyone
> provide a proof that this kind of legal document on the union does not
> exist?"
> If you think like this, why would you not be sick, my brother? You know
> nothing
> about it, but you authorize yourself to take such a strong position and
> even
> accuse SCNC of things you know nothing about! Or are you a paid detractor?
> If someone were
> to accuse your father of not being legally married to your mother, what
> would
> your father do if he were legally married to her? How would that person
> produce
> the negative proof? He might have gone to check in the civil status
> registry
> and not found any evidence of their marriage. Some of our arguments show
> simply
> that we have no idea how the world functions. The marriage certificate that
> is
> supposed to proof the marriage, if it exists, is a document of the state.
> The
> state doesn't provide regular proof or any documents showing that people
> are
> not married, except in rare circumstances like in court. So if your father
> had the
> marriage certificate, he would produce it to put all disputes to rest,
> especially against a person who was claiming a right to your mother! It
> would
> therefore not be an idle matter for your father to quickly produce a proof
> if
> one existed.
>
>
> If you genuinely
> want proof that there is no legal union between West Cameroon and East
> Cameroon, do not ask anyone. You can get it yourself, if you are not simply
> torturing your mind. If you get it yourself, you would be more convinced,
> because you may put up another argument that a proof from another person is
> fabricated. You have access to the same source of proof that everyone
> has! That source of proof, in this case, is the Secretariat of the United
> Nations. Read article 102 of the United Nations Charter. You will see that
> it
> is only at the Secretariat General of the United Nations that any document
> of
> union between the former Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons and
> Republique
> du Cameroun could be deposited, short of which the UN would not recognise
> any
> alleged union. All documents of the Secretariat General are open to the
> public
> and made available on the internet or on site in New York!
>
>
> Again, the
> people of the Southern Cameroons took Republique du Cameroun to the African
> Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Banjul, asking for proof of the
> alleged Union. They did that only because they are victims of Repulique's
> crime
> of colonisation, and could not find proof of the alleged union either in
> the
> Secretariat of the United Nations or anywhere else under the sun. And
> remember:
> some of them were living at the time of the fraud! Republique failed to
> produce
> proof of any kind for its alleged union before the Banjul Commission, just
> at a
> time when it needed the proof most.
>
>
>
> You also have
> the National Archives of Republique, where if there were any such proof,
> anyone
> could find it there, including yourself. It is not there. Or perhaps you
> could find it, and show it to us!
>
>
>
> Paul Biya set up
> a panel of legal experts to advise him on the so-called 50th
> anniversary of its union. All the experts unanimously told him that there is
> no
> legal union or proof thereof between the Southern Cameroons and Republique
> du
> Cameroun.
>
>
> Mola Njoh has
> told you: he went to the UN in New York to search for such proof. It does
> not
> exist. We have petitioned the UN Decolonisation Committee for any such
> proof.
> It does not exist.
>
>
> It is Republique
> that is claiming the existence of a legal Union, and denying illegal
> occupation. A reasonable mind would be asking but Republique du Cameroun to
> produce the proof of its alleged union, not asking the People of the
> Southern
> Cameroons who are victims. Is it not the suspect who should clear his name
> of
> any alleged crime? But shockingly, your own mind is asking but the People
> of
> the Southern Cameroons! In any reasonable mind, it is always the person
> making
> a claim that should produce the proof of their claim. That is why the people
> of
> the Southern Cameroons are asking Republique to produce proof of its
> claimed
> Union! That is what they are asking, and then you come along saying NO,
> they
> should produce proof that there is no Union! They have said there is no
> proof
> because Republique du Cameroun has failed to produce such proof when
> summoned
> in court to produce it! And, of course, because some of them were witnesses
> to
> the history and have found no proof at the United Nations' Secretariat, the
> only depository of such proofs.
>
>
> Do you have a
> record of how many southern Cameroonians have been killed, tortured,
> imprisoned
> for merely asking the proof of la Republique's claim? Oben Marxwell has been
> in
> jail since 2013, merely for asking that proof! He is still in prison as we
> write. The Southern Cameroons territory is subject to enormous military
> expenses to keep it in check. Why would Republique go through these
> additional
> crimes and all else if it could put an end to all the debate by putting the
> proof of the alleged union on the table? And remember: Republique is not
> simply
> answering to Southern Cameroonians but to all the diplomatic community and
> the
> international community at large! I am sure you took note that there were no
> foreign dignitaries at the so-called 50th anniversary celebration in Buea.
> If you can answer that question, your mind
> would recover its health. Instead, Republique and its supporters are
> investing
> in propaganda, intimidation, guns, fraud, falsehood, lie-telling, and
> confusion, all because they cannot put the proof of their claim on the
> table.
>
>
>
> Let us read and listen to understand, not to make time-wasting arguments.
> Whatever you or they
> say, we want the proof: only such a proof can put an end to the debate and
> to
> the struggle for independence! The proof would also prevent Republique from
> adding to its crimes against the people of the Southern Cameroons. That
> proof is required from the suspect, from Republique du Cameroun, not from
> its victims, the people of the Southern Cameroons! What will keep the
> struggle alive until victory is won is the absence of that proof!!!!
>
>
>
> Now, my friend
> and brother, you should know better.
>
> Atemnkeng.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>

--
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.

--

http://www.ambazonia.org/-    ONGOING CIVIL DEFENSE FORCE SIGN UP 

Read more: http://www.ambazonia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=306:-ambazonian-civil-defence-force-created&catid=1:latest-news-category&Itemid=265

--
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.