Re: THE FOUBAM BAZAAR,MASKING THE SLAVE DEAL

Mola

One needs to ask brother Eddie to tell us who were the Ministers of
German Kamerun government for him to claim that the was a country
called German Kamerun

Agien Nyangkwe

On 7/21/16, 'Prof. NICO FRU AWASOM' via ambasbay
<ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>  Nicodemus Fru Awasom, PhD (Ibadan) Professor and Chair Department of
> History University of Swaziland Kwaluseni Campus Private Bag 4 Swaziland
> Phone (H) (+268) 2518-8186 Phone (Mobile) (+268) 76 431 571 SKYPE:
> awasomawasom
>
> On Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:28 AM, 'Chief Charles A.Taku' via ambasbay
> <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> FOUMBAN CONFERENCE 55TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL:  THE FOUMBAN BAZAAR:  MASKING
> THE SLAVE DEAL
> Foumban Conference 55th Anniversary Special:  THE FOUMBAN BAZAAR:  Masking
> the slave deal
> Posted date: July 18, 2016in: The RambleNo Comments
> One of the greatest African creative writers and progressive critical
> thinkers of our times, the late Dr Bate Besong described the purported
> constitutional conference that took place in Foumban on July 17, 1961,
> between the leaders and delegates of the independent La Republique du
> Cameroun and the leaders of the Southern Cameroons then under British
> administration as the "Foumban Bazaar".
> The Foumban Bazaar that took place on this date should not be conflated with
> the tripartite conference that the United Nations General Assembly decided
> should take place to work out the terms of the termination of the Trust over
> the Southern Cameroons on October 1, 1961 and the independence and union
> with independent La Republique du Cameroun.  That conference never held and
> so no terms of the termination of the trust and independence and union were
> worked out. La Republique du Cameroun voted against the said UN resolution
> resolution which was passed nevertheless and, opted rather for the outright
> annexation and colonization of the Southern Cameroons. The so-called Foumban
> Constitutional Conference therefore, was a charade; a fraud if you may,
> intended to mask the criminal intent of La Republique du Cameroun to annex
> the Southern Cameroons.
> On August 11, 1961, barely 25 days after the Foumban bazaar, Ahidjo threw
> the fraudulent draft Federal Constitution which he presented to the
> delegates in Foumban into a waste paper basket and ordered instead an
> amendment of the Constitution of La Republique du Cameroun of March 4, 1960,
> to "absorb and accommodate the reunited part of its territory".  In that
> address, Ahidjo stated inter alia:
> "Since the referendum of February 1961, in which our brothers from the other
> side of the Mungo voted massively to rejoin us and considering the decision
> of the United Nations fixing October 1, 1961 as the date of the termination
> of the trust over the territory, and reunification, we have been preparing
> the judicial and technical framework which will permit us, when the moment
> comes to approach national reunion in joy without any handicap…
> "This text is presented to you as an amendment of our present constitution.
> In effect, pursuant to the UN resolution, the reunited Cameroon does not
> appear in International Law to be a new sovereign state and legally
> reunification is not analyzed as a modification of our frontier…
> "By regaining its separated territory the character of La Republique du
> Cameroun does not change before international institutions…
> "It is therefore for the sovereign state of Cameroun to take all the
> measures it deems necessary to adopt its institutions to the changes that
> will occur in its internal structures."
> It was on the basis of the stated address that Law no 61-24 of September 1,
> 1961, was passed to annex the territory of the Southern Cameroons prior to
> October 1, 1961, although it was affirmed in this address that the UN trust
> over the Southern Cameroons was to be terminated only on October 1, 1961.
> The intendment of this internal legal procedure was not to engineer the
> legal framework for a union of two independent trust territories which was
> the option expressed by the Southern Cameroons in the Plebiscite on 11
> February 1961 and validated by the UN.  It was not to give effect to the
> implementation of the UN resolution terminating the trust on October 1,
> 1961. It was not to provide a basis for a negotiated union treaty, the terms
> of which had to be filed at the Secretariat of the UN, pursuant to article
> 102 of the UN Charter as evidence of the Southern Cameroons exercise of its
> article 76 (b) external right of self –determination which is an erga omnes
> obligation enforceable against all nations and international institutions
> including the UN itself.
> The interpretation by La Republique du Cameroun of the result of the
> plebiscite and the UN resolution terminating the trust over the Southern
> Cameroons as of October 1, 1961, as permitting it to amend its constitution
> and internal laws to annex the Southern Cameroons was an egregious violation
> of the UN Charter and the peremptory norms of international law, requiring
> severe sanctions. Failing to do so will give tacit blessings to impunity and
> a reckless violation of international law without consequences.
> Britain's Complicity, Conspiracy!
> It is submitted that La Republique du Cameroun could not, in violation of
> international law have annexed and colonized the territory of the Southern
> Cameroons without the complicity of Great Britain, the UN trust
> administering power.  As the picture accompanying this article and several
> documentary proofs establish, Great Britain, the administering power, bears
> the greatest responsibility for the violations of international law through
> the annexation and colonization of the Southern Cameroons and the grave
> prejudice suffered.  The available evidence and historical records establish
> that prior to October 1, 1961, the critical date on which the trust was to
> be terminated; Great Britain conspired with La Republique du Cameroun to
> surrender sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons to Ahmadou Ahidjo at Tiko
> Airport on September 30, 1961.  This was an egregious violation of the terms
> of the UN resolution terminating the trust. It was a violation of a
> peremptory norm of international law. It was a fundamental breach of
> Britain's UN Charter obligations and a source of potential threat to peace
> and security in the sub-region.
> Great Britain, although its colonial history points to the contrary, has
> always prided itself as the depository of civilized values of freedom and
> legality.  Asserting the right of its people to the expression of external
> self-determination, Great Britain very recently voted to leave the European
> Union.  Great Britain not long ago, supported Scotland's asserting and
> exercise of her right to external self-determination to leave or remain in
> the United Kingdom.  When it came to the case of the Southern Cameroons,
> Great Britain handed over Southern Cameroons to colonial rule in a deal
> which Senior Counsel, Fon Fongum Gorji-Dinka calls the McLeod Slave Deal.
> Great Britain therefore, bears responsibility for the egregious violations
> to which Southern Cameroons under colonial rule is undergoing.
> Prof. Lekene Donfack's legal argument
> Several scholars and international law experts have argued that Cameroun was
> never a federation and that it was presented as a federation was a charade.
> Leading the charge,  Lekene Donfack, a  Professor of Public Law and former
> senior Minister in the Biya Government forcefully argued that shortly after
> the purported reunification, Ahidjo set out to deconstruct  the democratic
> institutions of the Southern Cameroons. He first appointed a Federal
> Administrator to superintend over the Federated State of West Cameroon,
> extended emergency laws to the territory, suspended civil liberties and
> began a progressive evisceration of the cultural and legal identity of the
> Southern Cameroons.
> After Ahidjo obtained legal advice that his interpretation of the results of
> the plebiscite and the UN resolutions on the Southern Cameroons was wrong,
> with potential serious implications and consequences in international law,
> Ahidjo devised a fraudulent ploy to obtain the consent of the Southern
> Cameroons to the annexation of their territory through a referendum
> establishing a "United Republic of Cameroon".  By law no 69/LF/15 OF 10
> November 1969; he called a referendum for this purpose.  Leading scholars in
> La Republique du Cameroun again argued that this referendum was problematic
> in many ways.  For me, this referendum was invalid because it was organized
> under a state of emergency and state terror in which fundamental human and
> civil rights were gravely endangered.
> The multiparty regime that existed in the Southern Cameroons was proscribed
> in 1966.  A state of emergency that existed in parts of East Cameroon were
> extended to the Southern Cameroons in 1963, and re-enforced throughout the
> territory in 1966. Under the law on subversion applicable in the territory
> of West Cameroon since 1963, civilians were abducted and detained at the
> political prisons in Yoko or Mantoum.  Many persons were tried under
> emergency law in the Military Tribunal for voicing opposition to the
> annexation of the Southern Cameroons or other oppressive Government
> policies.
> The arrest in 1969 of Bishop Albert Ndongmo and that of the foremost
> progressive anti-neo-colonial nationalist, Ernest Ouandie and other UPC
> nationalists provided an occasion for Ahidjo to re-enforce the authority of
> the police state and his rule of tyranny.  It was under these circumstances
> that he organized the referendum, seeking to obtain the consent of the
> Southern Cameroons to the annexation of their territory in attempts to
> redress the violations of international law he, with the complicity of Great
> Britain committed against the people before the trust was terminated on
> October 1, 1961.
> The conduct of this referendum amounted to a violation of Cameroun's
> international treaty obligations.  It was not and could not reasonably be a
> free franchise because persons of voting age were compelled to show their
> voting cards at road blocks mounted all over the national territory; in
> particular in the Southern Cameroons whose consent was the immediate purpose
> for the charade.  The right to boycott or abstain from participating in a
> poll is an exercise of free will which was denied millions of Southern
> Cameroonians who were not willing to participate in a poll legitimizing
> their colonial status.  Apart from the ballot papers, which, in many polling
> stations had but the option of " Yes" and "Oui" validating a predetermined
> result of over 99 percent,  only one Southern Cameroonian, Chief Henry
> Namata Elangwe was appointed a member of the National Vote Counting
> Commission.  Finally, prior to the vote, the President Mr. Ahidjo declared a
> state of siege, assumed absolute power, suspended the constitution,
> dismissed parliament and ruled the country by ordinances and decrees.
> UN's two distinct maps
> On taking over power, his constitutional successor Paul Biya found this
> constitutional arrangement to be problematic.  He found that rather than
> afford an effective remedy for the international violations against the
> Southern Cameroons, it aggravated the violations. In order to mitigate the
> damage done by the aggravation of the violations, he promptly got a law
> enacted clarifying the territorial identity and name  of his country La
> Republique du Cameroun obtained on the critical date of January 1, 1960 when
> its international boundaries  were frozen.  There was absolute nothing he
> could do to bring the Southern Cameroons within the international boundaries
> of La Republique du Cameroun since Ahidjo declared when enacting the law
> annexing the territory of the Southern Cameroons that an international
> treaty to that effect was unnecessary. And indeed he was right because he
> did not require an international treaty to violate the UN Charter, UN
> resolutions and peremptory norms of international law.  However, the
> violation of international law with impunity has consequences. These
> violations will never ever remain without redress. That indeed was the
> message the President of the UN General Assembly brought to President Paul
> Biya during the 50th anniversary of the Independence of the Republique du
> Cameroun through the public presentation of the two distinct maps of La
> Republique du Cameroun and the Southern Cameroons which the UN Press issued
> from Yaoundé characterized as the maps of the "authentic history of
> Cameroon".  The world saw the presentation of these maps and took note, so
> also Southern Cameroonians.  On that presentation and on the principles of
> respect for international legality, we firmly stand.
> By Charles Achaleke Taku
> *Chief Charles Achaleke Taku is a lead Counsel at the ICC, is member of the
> Executive Council and Vice President of ICCBA in-charge of the defence.
>
> --
> 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.
>


--
Aaron Agien NYANGKWE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 673 42 71 27

--
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.