Comrade MAN,
This is much ado about nothing. Let us champion a new world order. Let us come up with concrete things to do in order to restore our state. We are not begging anybody. We are simply asking the annexationist to leave us peacefully because we did not join them by force and we will not stay with them by force. We do not want an inch of their territory either. We do not want any more bloodshed in Ambazonia. They have waged enough wars against our people and killed enough people from Ambazonia to warrant the Gods to be angry with them. Right now as we speak, bands of our patriots are languishing in various jails across la republique because they said no to impunity and their grievous crimes against our people. Of late, Kondengui prison in Yaounde received civilian prisoners transported from Wum to be trialed in a military tribunal in a foreign land and quite often in a language they do not understand. Attached is the picture of one of our compatriots, Che Clovis who was bartered in Bamenda prison by one of the warders in-charge claiming that he is a terrorist in the Numvi et al vs la republique du cameroun Case. Maxwell is going blind in Buea prison for no crime committed except that he speaks SCNC language. We do not know why this is allowed to go on and on while we spend hours talking to ourselves here instead of addressing the crimes against our collective interests. We are suffering a genocide. We have been economically dismembered and disabled, and politically emaciated.
Common comrades, Lets for once Stop talking and start addressing these egregious crimes against too trusting a people in Ambazonia.
While thanking the older generation for resisting the temptation of giving up and accepting the status quo a la camerounese, I will like to appeal to the younger generation to stand up and act like other young people do everywhere when faced with similar circumstances. Where is our humanity? When impunity becomes the rule rebellion becomes the best option to re-establish order and peace. I do not expect the younger generation to follow in the steps of the old and have the audacity to blame them. With robust energy, I expect to hear the youths telling us that they have planned a peaceful march to the proconsuls to ask them to peacefully exit the land and allow us to develop it to the best of our ability. I expect the young people to tell us what they have to offer the new nation in terms of planting a renaissance at all levels. I expect the young people to act now to make the old people smile on their way to the grave. I do not expect them to get into verbal hot exchanges and plunge us into a blame game that leads us no where.
On 7 July 2016 at 06:48, 'Chief Charles A.Taku' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (ambasbay@googlegroups.com) Add cleanup rule | More info
So therefore Mr M.A.N when you make an effort to begin studying the case from the perspective of the Republic of Cameroun then and only then will you find that Mola's analysis took into consideration a comprehensive view of the entire case as opposed to this selective one sided overview. When and if you undertake this exercise, you will find no reason to belabor this matter further. For me, after an anxious consideration of the case from the perspective of all the parties, I do not see any reason to disturb the sound analysis made by Mola Njoh Litumbe. The reason advanced by Ahidjo for organizing a referendum in 1972 and the actions of the Republic of Cameroun prior to and thereafter, and this includes their consistent opposition to the resolutions of the UN and the motivational rationale for the resolutions you have selectively drawn our attention to, clearly establish that there was a need for a union treaty to complete the exercise of external self determination of the Southern Cameroons mandated by the UN Charter. This goal was not attained. The forms of the union suggested in speeches and resolutions you have drawn our attention to were never accepted, let alone formalized by LRC. This is the reason why prior to October 1, 1961, it amended its Constitution (1960) to annex Southern Cameroon. In effect, the amended provision of the constitution of LRC clearly states so. This is the act that must agitate sound reasoning about the nature of the relations between LRC and the Southern Cameroons and nothing else. This annexation did not form a valid legal basis for seeking a modification or adjustment of the territorial boundaries of LRC to include the territory of the SC. So therefore in 1972, Ahidjo sought a referendum whose purport you need to carefully read and analyse to enable you make an informed opinion about the case at bar. Before further action could be taken to internationalise the out come of the referendum, Paul Biya vitiated it and clarified the international identity of his country as unchanged from its territorial identity on January 1960. The Committee of experts set up by LRC has comprehensively settled this matter from the perspective of LRC. Nothing you are saying changes their conclusion and nothing you are saying creates a union which they have concluded did not legally exist until 1972. That is the reason why they celebrate May 20 as the "fete de l'unite". That is the celebration of the union which according to them occurred between LRC and SC on May 20, 1972. That putative union was vitiated by Paul Biya because it was a fraud ab initio. The celebration of the said fraudulent union on 20th May after it was vitiated and nullified by Paul Biya again highlight the desperation of LRC in struggling to find a solution to the criminal annexation of the SC which some among us seem to be recognizing in arguing that a union of two states was formalized through annexation and that it was only ended in 1984. No. 1984 only vitiated the fraud committed in 1972 and clarified the internationally recognized identity of LRC on the critical date of January 1960. It also brought the focus on the state of annexation and colonial status of the SC since its annexation in September 1960 by LRC with the complicity of Great Britain. The shameful handing over of the the instruments of sovereignty over the territory of the SC at the Tiko Airport to Ahidjo as opposed to the leaders of the SC by Great Britain was a violation of international law which some of us are endorsing. This is most unfortunate.
My advice to them is that a one sided study of this case without considering the case of the opposing party will only bring us into ridicule and inhibit our ability to face the struggle with our adversary's case in mind.
Chief Charles A. Taku
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 7/7/16, 'M A N' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Some views on Mola's mail of 04 July 2016 to Dear Southern Cameroonians (Ambazonians)
To: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "yahoogroups" <ambazonianationalgroup@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016, 7:51 AM
Some
views on Mola's mail of 01July 2016 to Dear Southern
Cameroonians (Ambazonians)
Mola, you
wrote,
"1)
I have read the very elegant speech by the Hon. S.T. Muna on
Tuesday 17th
October, 1961 at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
(I suspect it was
drafted by Prof.Bernard Nsokika Fonlon).
2) It is not what any particular
delegate states on
the floor of the General Assembly that matters.
3)
In the end, it is the recorded Resolution adopted by the
majority of members of
the General Assembly that becomes the decision of the
Assembly. (Mola)"
Mola,
your above views that has been numbered into three points
are not satisfactory,
and are therefore
confusing. We the younger generation had long being
relying on the older
generation, thinking they are right. If it was true, they
very elders that
negotiated this very mess could have got us out before they
passed on. They did
not tell us the truth. The younger generation have never had
a statement of
account as to what was achieved when our two prominent late
leaders and those
still with us, went to the UN to plead our case. We trusted
them and give them
all the support they needed. All the structure they left are
in fractions or
completely death. The young are now looking left and right
for answers as if we
did not have firsthand account of what was done. We are left
to find our way
out without clear directives from the main player. It is
high time one really
consider carefully what views are being pushed forward.
Certain views can make
frustrated or a lost generation to sin by swearing at our
elders.
These
small information from the UN document will so show that
what a delegate states
on the floor of the UN General Assembly is always very
important to the legal
workings of the UN.
Why in
search for answers as to why is it that, all trust
territories mentioned on the UN Trusteeship website that
got independence, were all admitted under UN Article 4 into
UN member states,
ONLY the trust territory of British Southern Cameroons that
had independence on
the 1st October 1961 and British Northern Cameroons that had
independence on
the 1st
June 1961 were nowhere to found. Even very smaller nations
than us have their entry records at the UN club. On
searching, something was noticed in UN official records
within Southern
Cameroons (Ambazonia) archives that linked to this Muna
speech that you seem to
have stated above that it has no legal effect within the
UN.
Against,
the point focus was, if all trust territories that had
independence where
admitted as new member states, what became of Southern
Cameroons that is
clearly mentioned as being independent. All other
independent state had, had
Article 4 applied to them, what became of our case. Please
note that, focus will
only be on what affects Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) that
had independence on
1st
October 1961. Anyone that will want to spend his or her to
include Northern Cameroons is his cup of tea.
Here we
go –the extract below are UN legal interpretation of UN
activities in relation
to UN Article 4 i.e Admission of New Member States in to the
UN.
In parts,
read paragraph 07 and 08 below starting with the heading
"C. Action taken by the Security Council and by
the General Assembly concerning the application for
admission of new Members
07. During 1960, the Security Council
recommended to the General Assembly the admission of the
following States: Cameroun (Cameroon)7 on 26 January; Togo on 31
May; Federation of
Mali8 on 28 June; Madagascar (Malagasy
Republic)9 on 29 June; Somalia on 5 July; Congo
(Leopoldville) on 7 July;10
Dahomey, Niger, Upper Volta, Ivory Coast, Chad, Congo
(Brazzaville), Gabon, and
Central African Republic on 23 August; Cyprus on 24 August;
Senegal and Mali on
28 September; and Nigeria on 7 October. On 3/4 December, the
application of Mauritania failed to obtain a recommendation
for admission …".
08. At its
fifteenth session the General Assembly, on 20 September 1960,
admitted: Cameroun
(Cameroon), Togo, Madagascar
(Malagasy Republic), Somalia, Congo (Leopoldville), Dahomey,
Niger, Upper
Volta, Ivory Coast, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Gabon,
Central African Republic,
and Cyprus to membership in the United Nations. The General
Assembly also
resolved to admit to membership Senegal and Mali on 28
September, and Nigeria
on 7 October of that year …" (International
Law Commission 1962)
From paragraph 07
above the focus should be on "During
1960, the Security Council recommended to the General
Assembly the admission of
the following States: Cameroun (Cameroon)7 on
26
January".
The first question, is the Cameroun highlighted in red have
any meaning at all?
The second question, is the (Cameroon) highlighted in
blue have any meaning at all?
The third question is, why
the footnote 7 attached to these
names?
The fourth question is, which
county was the Security Council deliberating on the 26
January?
Then,
from paragraph 08 above the line that
reads "At its
fifteenth session the General Assembly, on 20 September 1960,
admitted: Cameroun
(Cameroon) …"
The fifth question is, which
country was admitted on the 20 September
1960?
The full text of the Footnote 7 from
paragraph 07 above is:
= = = 7 In
accordance with G A resolution 1608 (XV) endorsing the results of the
separate plebiscites
conducted in the northern and southern
parts of the Cameroons under United Kingdom
administration, the trusteeship status of Southern
Cameroons was terminated
on 1st
October 1961 upon
its joining the Republic of Cameroun, henceforth called
the Federal Republic of Cameroon comprising East
Cameroon, i.e., formerly the Territory of the Republic of
Cameroun, and West Cameroon, i.e., formerly the Territory
of the Southern Cameroons under United Kingdom
administration. Sec General Assembly
(XVI/1), Plenary 1038th mtg., paras. 15to 20. See also this Supplement under Article 76.
= = =
The first concern is how on earth
is Resolution 1608(XV) that was the final step to decolonise
the trust
territory of British Cameroon that took place far ahead on
the 21 April 1961 find
its way into something that took place far back in the 1960?
– Cameroun that
had independence in 1960.
The
second concern is which country was actually admitted on the
20 September 1960
as a UN member states from these Cameroun
(Cameroon)? Do we think that the Cameroun (Cameroon)
used there is just
French and English spelling of the same noun, as some will
want us to believe? Is
this not something that is affecting us as to who we are?
This is one of the
reasons that, as far back as in the 60s, people like late
Ewusi were talking of
Ambazonia to be our identity at independence to
differentiate us from the
French Cameroun. Did our elders and leaders listened the
then? No! One will say
same old story not so? Yes, wouldn't be going away any
time soon.
The third
concern from the footnote 7 is why is it stated
that "Sec G A (XVI/1), Plenary 1038th mtg.,
paras.
15—20? What is it talking about?
Fellow Ambazonians let everybody read it here below and take
note of paragraph 15 to 20 as recommended in
the footnote 7
Please do
the reccommodated paragraph 15 to 20 and Article 76 from the
two links below .
Sec
G A (XVI/1),Plenary 1038th mtg., paras.
15—20
Sec
also this Supplement under Article 76
After
reading it, will it be an over statement for one to conclude
that what Mola
said, delegates speaking on the General Assembly floor are
not legally important
is not correct? Dear Southern Ambazonians, we are quoting
the legal stand point
of the United Nations. We are analysing UN own legal
documents. Every activity
that any organ of the United Nations takes is always legally
interpret or
analysis by real legal experts to give such actions or
activities the full international
legal compliances that it has to have as a source of
international law making
body. So for someone to sit in his own world and keep
talking without going
deeper to find out as why certain things outside their own
domain go the way
there are is just worrying.
We should
also take note that during the plenary meeting of the
General Assembly on
resolution 1608 (XV) it was already on records, or known
that the termination
of the Trusteeship Agreement for the British Cameroons was
independence as per
UN Article 76b according the wishes of the people –most
especially the Southern Cameroons wishes as per
the plebiscites' results was to join with Cameroun in a
Federal UNION. How did
that choice or option to know the wishes of our people
became to be that of
joining Cameroun or Nigeria is a different explanations for
another day --I
should admit that our people or leaders then, are to be
blamed, accept it or
not. It has been done.
The fact that
Hon ST Muna delivered a brilliant speech on 17th
Oct. 1961 is very
nice, but the UN General Assembly Resolution 1608 records
the official
consensus of the Members on the question of the date of
independence of Southern
Cameroons, which was violently opposed by LRC.
(Mola)
Mola what
do you mean by a brilliant speech on the 17th
October 1961 is very
nice? Nice to you because you enjoy the legal
imprecation that resulted
from it? From paragraph 15 to 20 you have read, how did that
makes things nice
for us? If Cameroun violently opposed the independence of
Southern Cameroons,
is the speech you qualify as brilliant and very nice showing
any sign of
standing up or resisting the fact that Cameroun did
seriously opposed out rightly
our own independence? What really makes it brilliant and
very nice?
Would
this not have been, the right time for Muna to point out to
the whole world,
that Cameroun violently opposed our independent, so we will
not continue with the
union since he was talking as a delegate of an independent
state after 1st
October 1961? Is this strategic thinking
deficiency we are now suffering from, the very problem from
the beginning. We
are now trying to fight back after condoning the mess for so
long, why could
the fight not have started that day when Muna made the
speech as the leader of
the delegation of independent state of Southern Cameroons?
Do you know that
Muna speech took place two weeks after our independence date
of 1st
October 1961? Do you know that, that was the first and last
appearance of independent
Southern Cameroons state as per 1608XV when Muna appeared at
the United Nations
to say we have formed a perfect Federal Republic of
Cameroon? From the legal
connections and implications resulting from Muna speech, a
rightful thinking
Ambazonian nationalist will strongly curse those words
"… ST Muna delivered a
brilliant speech on the 17th
October 1961 is very nice".
Was that
not the point everybody at the UN and world heard and
accepted that the Federal
constitution was is place as demanded in 1608XV? Think this
way, knowing fully
well that Cameroun opposed our independence, and knowing
fully well that by
operation of the UN Article 76b (Independence) as stated in
the greater part of
1608XV, came into effect on the 1st
October 1961, could he not have
used that moment for the first time as the leader of
delegation of an independent
Southern Cameroons to say no, to the union and nothing would
have happened? Did
he even knew what was at play, or he was thinking of his
post in the federal cabinet?.
Only when we as a people will come to know and support
purely true Nationalist
personalities to lead and talk for us we are not out of the
woods.
Is it not
now clear that, that speech was the legal bases for the
frequent legal
international records that said there was a Federal Union?
–ICJ, UN, ILC,
British Government, and ILO.
It is not biblical that, on an
account of two witnesses, evidence should be
accept. So, in our struggle, we have the United Kingdom
saying the was a Federal
Union paragraph 21, the United Nations records says there
was a federal Union,
the International Law Commission says there was a Federal
Union. The International
Court of Justice says there was a federal Union. The
international Labour
Organisation records say the same. Are
these not enough witnesses for us to accept or find out
carefully how they came
to such a conclusion as to find our way out? Or is it
because by accepting such
principles it will validate the stand of person we do not
like?
All these
stand points, to best of my knowledge, I will confess that
came to being, just
because of this Muna's speech that finalised the paragraph
5 of Resolution
1608XV of 21 April 1961.
That Resolution, by a
majority of members, fixed 1 Oct 1961 as the date of
independence of
Southern Cameroons. The Resolution also strongly advised the
holding of a
tripartite conference between the British Administering
Authority, the
Govt of Southern Cameroons and the Govt of La Republique du
Cameroun, to draw up a Union
Agreement, reflecting the
understandings and undertakings of the parties, it being
understood that
Southern Cameroons was first to be independent before
joining La Republique du
Cameroun in a Federation of 2 states equal in status. It
was not
necessary to reproduce the provisions of the UN Charter Art
102, as
constitutional provisions are deemed to apply to all the
dealings of member
states of the UN.(Mola)
Are you
quoting from a draft or the official Resolution 1808 XV? One
can see that
something is not adding up in the phrase "to draw up a Union Agreement".
Both the
draft or final/official resolution 1608XV did not talked of
drawing up a Union
Agreement, but it state in paragraph 5. Invites
the Administering Authority, the Government of the Southern
Cameroons and the
Republic of Cameroun to initiate
urgent discussions with a view to finalizing, before 1 October 1961,
the arrangements by which the agreed and
declared policies of the parties concerned will be implemented.
The
Plebiscite Pact has clearly pointed out the direction, which
inferably has to
end with a Federal Constitution and not a different
treaty.
Do you know that, UN
by this time already had in their
records those agreed and declared policies? What were those
agreed and declared
policies talking or insinuating to? Federal Union. Are
federal union finalized or
concluded in different instrument other than a Federal
Constitution? In our
case, given the fact that the Plebiscite Pact has already
pointed out clearly direction
thing. Let's constitutional lawyers talk help out. Are we
not wasting time and
energy talking of not union in compliance to UN Art. 102 and
203? Or are we
just running away because it will validating an old view
that had been around for
long time just because of a personality?
Quotes during the
General Assembly plenary meeting on
1608 XV on the 21 April 1960.
163. Sir
Andrew COHEN (United Kingdom … Negotiations have
still to take place between the Government of the Southern
Cameroons and the
Government of the Republic of Cameroun. A constitution has to
be drawn up and finalized. The communique
issued by
President Ahidjo and Mr. Foncha said that the constitution
would be federal and that federation
would not be automatic but
gradual. [[[
is it logical to say that since the federation was to be
gradual, yes we
started federation in October 1961 but by 1984 it became
clear that it cannot
work so Cameroun left and do not want to let go too. Me not
Cohen]]]
170. Sir
Andrew COHEN (United Kingdom Exactly the same
thing applies in the case of the
Republic of Cameroun, and here I would like, if I may, to
refer to paragraphs
79-82—though I will not do so at length—of the report of
the United Nations Plebiscite
Commissioner'. When we asked
the Government of the Republic of Cameroun what the
arrangement would be in the
case of the Southern Cameroons it the people chose the
Republic, they sent to
us a note verbale which is found in paragraph 79 of the
report and which, in
view of its importance, I must read out: "The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs
presents its compliments to the British Embassy to Cameroun
at Yaounde and,
with reference to its note verbale No. F.M. 68
(1041/60) dated 16 December 1960, has the honour to
state that,
following the conversations which have just taken place at
Douala between the
President of the Republic of Cameroun and Mr. Foncha, the
Premier of the
Southern Cameroons, it has been decided that, in connection
with the plebiscite
organized in the Southern Cameroons on the question of
whether that country
should join the Federation of Nigeria or the Republic of
Cameroun, the
Government of the Republic of Cameroun has announced that it
adheres to the
spirit of the attached joint communiques, which indicate its
desire for unification with the
Cameroons under
British administration on the basis of a Federation.
"The Government of the Republic of Cameroun requests
the British Embassy
to consider the attached communiques as an expression of the
official views of
the Republic and further requests that they be published for
the purposes
prescribed by Trusteeship Council resolution 2013 (XXVI),
referred to in its
note verbale quoted above."
171. Sir
Andrew COHEN (United Kingdom I do not need to go
into details on the communique,
but it contains the following phrase—and I quote from page
8 of annex XIV of
the appendix to Dr. Abdoh's
report:
"3. ..
that they wish to create a Federal State whose
institutions could
be broadly outlined as follows:
"'The
Federal United Cameroun Republic will be a democratic
State'." This is the
origin of the references in paragraph 5 of the draft
resolution.
Take note
here that, from the preceding paragraph the word Federal
United Cameroun
Republic is mention in the plebiscite pact, as well as in
the Federal Constitution
and the name of the country (until 1984) that Muna was
quoting and not in the
official vision of 1608XV. Why did it not appear in the
final resolution?
Because it was not legal to state it in, directly by UN.
Also we should ask ourselves,
if there were two sovereign states uniting, why was the
Cameroun/Southern
Cameroon not in the plural form say Camerouns or Cameroons?
We always allow
others, or want others people to do our own things for us.
We are just a people
who do not care about meaning of words, not so? We did not
care when, and the
means used when the word federal was removed from the said
constitution Muna
was quoting. We did not care when the word united and the
two yellow stars on
the flag was removed because we are very learned people in
the world. All we
care and want to prove is that there should be a union
treaty different from a
Federal constitution to comply with 102 and
103.
172. Sir
Andrew COHEN (United Kingdom It was
these documents which were published for the information of
the people of the
Southern 'Cameroons and it was on them that they voted,
and therefore it does
not seem unreasonable to us that they should be referred to.
On the other hand,
if I may make a suggestion as representing the Administering
Authority, it
seems to me --and this particular point was raised by the
representatives of
Argentina and Guinea, and by others --that it would help the
situation, and, I
hope, it help the Government of the Republic of Cameroun, if
this proposal of
the representative of Guinea were adopted, and as far as I
am concerned, we see
no objection to the deletion of the words "for a
union of the Southern Cameroons with the Republic of
Cameroun into a Federal
United Cameroun Republic", and I would be quite
prepared to vote
separately on the deletion of those words. I believe that
such deletion would
help a number of delegations.
Why was the
phrase "for a union of the Southern
Cameroons with
the Republic of Cameroun into a Federal United Cameroun
Republic" deleted from the draft? It was
strongly argued by delegations of member's states that,
the UN cannot dictate
to any sovereign state specifically what form of union a
state can have with
other states. That was why paragraph 6 of the draft 1608XV
was removed and
never appeared in the final 1608XV, but it was already known
that as per the
agreed and declared policies it was to be Federal United
union.
In the history of
United Nations has there been
Federal forms of union between member's states prior to
the union between
independent Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroun? If
yes, where there any
special union treaty different from a Federal constitution
between the parties,
and then simple
notification where then sent to
the UN either by note, cable, fax
or speech to SAY that, such and such sovereign member states
are in a Federal
Union, without reference to UN Article 102 or 103? Yes, let
read UN example
below.
Formation of the
United Arab Republic, 1958
17. The following note, dated
24 February 1958, was sent to the Secretary- General by the
Foreign Minister of
the United Arab Republic18
"The
plebiscite held in Egypt and Syria on 21 February 1958
having made clear the will of the Egyptian and Syrian
people to unite their
two countries in a single State, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the United
Arab Republic has the honour to notify the Secretary-General
of the United
Nations of the establishment of the United Arab Republic,
having Cairo as its
capital, and the election, in the same plebiscite, of
President Gamal Abdel
Nasser as President of the new Republic." (UN ILC) No
different treaty was
made to comply with UN Article 102 or 103. [[[Which is
similar to what Muna
did.]]]
Even within the
Fourth Committee draft resolution 1608XV, it was
mentioned that UN
constitutional experts were to be involved with the
implementation of union
that was to be form. But during the plenary meeting, member
states objected it on
legal grounds that, it was against the UN charter for the
United Nations to
send or appoint outsiders as experts to draw a constitution
of a sovereign
state – that, it is the right of nationals of a sovereign
state to determine
what form of constitution they want. The Cameroun delegates
at meeting made it very
clear that, if the UN inserted such a clause into the final
resolution 1608XV,
the government of Cameroun will not allowed entry to such
experts into
Cameroun. By implication Britain was in one way or the other
not welcome by
Cameroun. This somehow explain why we read most of the time
that Foncha, the
Prime Minister was the one having meeting with Ahidjo
without Britain take
central stage. Instead of Foncha who knew this because he
was present during
the plenary meeting, to fall back for help from his own people, decided to make his deal with
Ahidjo for his
political post of vice president. Foncha actually abandon
the real terms of the
Plebiscite Pact (the corner Stone of the union) that would
have resulted into a
strong Federal Constitution if the nationalist or learned
Ambazonians were
brought in. But he betrayed Ambazonian by secretly settling
in for the revised
internal constitution of the Cameroun. What is so painful is
that he did not
disclosed the said French revised constitution in his
keeping to our people
before Foumban talks. It is like, Foncha thought that rather
than sellout
alone, ones guess is that, Muna was just there looking for
his own possibility
to make his own gain as he too was promised a post in the
fake Federal cabinet.
So, we see Muna go to make the speech at the UN General
Assembly that nailed us
as we are seeing. Let the doubting Thomas' read. It was
after this speech that
the name Federal Republic Cameroun or Cameroon or Cameroons
or Camerouns
entered the international legal arena like the ICJ in 1963
Northern Cameroons
case, ILO, ILC. And the UN.
British government and the world.
.....................................One
of the Revelations from British
Archives.
In one such
stunning revelation, the Deputy Commissioner for the
Cameroons, Mr. Malcolm Milne, filed the following
despatch to the
Colonial Office in London On July 1, 1961, after the ALL
Party Conference that
held in Bamenda from 26-30 June 1961 to prepare for the
Foumban Conference.
"… We believe, on
very good information, that Foncha
has already done a private deal with Ahidjo, the idea being
that the present
Government of the Republic will become the government of the
Federation on 1st
October, and that the sovereignty will be transferred to it
and defence and
national security will become federal matters.
In return for
bringing the Southern Cameroons on these
terms Foncha has been promised the
Vice-Presidency of
the Federal Republic and Muna has been promised a post in
the Federal Cabinet.
At one time we
thought there might have been a
show-down at the Bamenda All-Party Conference with every
one's cards on the
table, but all that has happened is that Foncha has trotted
out his
pre-plebiscite constitutional proposals and invited comments
on them.
The CPNC and OKP-and
indeed the Chiefs also – have
demanded an account of what went on during the Tripartite
Conference between
representatives of La Republique du Cameroun, the Southern
Cameroons, and the
United Kingdom that held in the House of Assembly in Buea
from 15–17 May, 1961,
but Foncha, strongly pressed by Muna, has kept
mum.
It seems that the
other ministers although very
unhappy are nevertheless tagging along. Notably Foncha has
told them that if
the worse comes to the worst and Ahidjo's terms have to be
accepted they can
still hope to remain in office in the Southern
Cameroons.
It seems that Foncha
will now trot off to Bamun armed
with the views of all parties in the Southern Cameroons (and
all are unanimous
in opposing any suggestion of the transfer of sovereignty to
a body other than
a body representing the future federation: they also are
unanimous in demanding
that defence must be a regional
responsibility).
He will presumably
once again test Ahidjo's attitude.
If the latter is firm, Foncha will, I think, give into him
and take refuge in
the secret deals arrangement. I am sure that the wretched
little man is moved
very largely by considerations of what is best for himself;
the interests of
the Southern Cameroons will come a poor second. However, he
will need more than
his usual luck and agility to avoid a moment of truth should
he return from
Bamun having accepted Ahidjo's terms". = = =
…………………………………….
Everybody
agrees that the alleged so-called LRC Law 24/61 of 1st Sept
1961 violated Art.
102 of the UN Charter and, in the absence of a written
Agreement between the
parties, was unconstitutional and illegal. Any conclusions
founded on the violation
of a constitutional provision suffer from the cancerous base
of an illegality,
which cannot be repaired, because the base is
illegal.
The
so-called Joining Law No. 24/61 unilaterally passed by the
Parliament of La
Republique du Cameroun and promulgated by its President on 1
Sept 1961 could
have no legal application to the territory of Southern
Cameroons which was
still a UN trust territory until midnight of 30 Sept 1961.
LRC Law No. 24/61
creating a "Federation" with Southern Cameroons,
without there being
a union agreement with that territory, collapses under the
weight of UN Charter
Art. 103.(Mola)
Mola can you always go a little bit deeper to back your
point? Take note that
UN on the 21st
April 1961during
the plenary meeting that concluded 1608XV had demanded in it
that "…. urgent
discussions with a view to finalizing, before 1 October 1961,
the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies
of the parties
concerned will be implemented". The big problem here
is that our Prime Minister did not tell our people what was
going on or what he
was doing. He did not involve the people who would have
bargain for us. Our
leadership accept what Ahidjo brought without fight back. No
body questioned it
at the time or even till …… What do you think would have
happened if our people
knew and raise an alarm? The talking now
is as if these happened without out complete participation
of our own leaders.
Which is not honesty at all.
What
Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) live with now is an illegal
co-habitation with
LRC. There has been no legitimate union that complies with
international law
per the UN Charter Art 102.. UN General Assembly Res. 1608
of 21 Apr 1961 fixed
the date of 1st Oct 1961 as the date of the Independence of
Southern Cameroons.
The independence of Southern Cameroons has been suppressed
by La Republique du
Cameroun by ,annexing the territory and converting it into
two regions within
its own country.(Mola)
Yes, the Resolution 1608XV fixed 1st
October 1960 as Independence
Day for Southern Cameroons. Do you also agree that that same
resolution also
stated that agreed and declared policies of the
parties
be finalized before 1st
October 1961? Who was doing things
for us then? Was it only Cameroun? No! After what was
jointly done with the
full knowledge and participating of our Prime Minister was
taken in parts to UN
General Assembly that a Federation union has been finished.
Just read what Muna
said in paragraph 18 and 19
below.
"18 -Finally, we successfully produced a draft
Federal
Constitution, which, having been adopted by the two
legislatures of East and
West Cameroon, now binds the two States together as a
Federation, which came
into being as the Federal Republic of Cameroon on 1 October
1961. We are
proud to report that this Constitution, drawn up by us,
is typical and
adaptable to our peculiar and existing
problems.
19. I should now like to
read out parts of
several articles of the Constitution in order to impress
upon representatives
that the unification we have achieved is not a faked or
an imaginary one, but a reality."
With these and other
more in our archives, Mola you wants to say that 102 and 103
is the wining
card? One fact is clear, there is no direct court to hear
this annexation that
we have helped bring on us by keeping silence for too long.
It is also worth
noting that the UN also has her detail facts as to what
happened. They must
have a reason to have in their record sometimes back that
there was a
Federation union between Southern Cameroons and Cameroun. If
we know why the UN
records says so, then it will help us. If we know how we got
in to the mess
into first place, what was our own part in the in the game
and to admit our
mistakes or failures then we will be able to access the
problem well. To say,
that party did this and that, without acknowledging our
failures is very
dangerous way of doing. That part might be waiting for us to
us say we did this
and that as well. We have learn more from what the UN have
in archives, so that
we can have a winning strategy. I do not think anyone is
ready for any failed
or unaccounted mission like that of the 9 man delegation to
UN in 1993.
These facts
are being put out not to demonized anyone, but to let us
know what really
happened –specially the part that we or
our leaders played, before we get to where we are, and not
just to blame someone
out there as if we were not part of it. As we make
accusations we should be
aware they two have us on records. And should anyone think
that these facts are
being out to demonize others as to support a particular view
point, then such a
person should rethink.
Conclusion
It is our fervent
stand that democracy should not be played over matters of
Sovereignty at all –but
democracy highly
acceptable over internal politics and all other internal
matters. Once Sovereignty
is attacked all must stand up above all
political spectrum to defend Sovereignty. Without
sovereignty, no politics and
no democracy. It is also our passionate
stand that real Nationalist
be allowed or supported to lead matters of Sovereignty and not politicians. Politicians are highly welcome to
do or practiced
democracy over all other national or internal matters
MAN
Ambazonian
Down
under
From: Njoh Litumbe
<njohl42@gmail.com>
To:
ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 4 July
2016, 20:12
Subject: Re: BREAKING:
COULD THIS MEAN THERE WAS A UNION? MUNA"S DELEGATION TO
THE UN IN 1961
Dear Southern Cameroonians (Ambazonians)
I have read the very elegant
speech by the Hon. S.T. Muna on Tuesday
17th
October, 1961 at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
(I
suspect it was drafted by Prof.Bernard
Nsokika Fonlon).
It is not
what any particular delegate states on the floor of the
General Assembly that matters. In the end, it
is the recorded
Resolution adopted by the
majority of members of the General Assembly
that becomes the decision of the Assembly.
The fact that the Hon ST Muna
delivered a brilliant speech on 17th
Oct.
1961 is very nice, but the UN General Assembly Resolution
1608
records the official consensus of the
Members on the question of the
date of
independence of Southern Cameroons, which was violently
opposed by LRC. That Resolution, by a
majority of members, fixed 1
Oct 1961 as
the date of independence of Southern Cameroons. The
Resolution also strongly advised the holding of
a tripartite
conference between the
British Administering Authority, the Govt of
Southern Cameroons and the Govt of La
Republique du Cameroun, to draw
up a Union
Agreement, reflecting the understandings and undertakings
of the parties, it being understood that
Southern Cameroons was first
to be
independent before joining La Republique du Cameroun in a
Federation of 2 states equal in status. It
was not necessary to
reproduce the
provisions of the UN Charter Art 102, as constitutional
provisions are deemed to apply to all the
dealings of member states of
the UN.
Independence by Joining has
been defined by UN General Assembly Res.
1541(XV) passed on 15 Dec. 1960, which
stipulated that Independence by
Joining
could only be either by way of association or by
integration.
The logical inference is that
the the methodology for joining having
been established by a UN General Assembly Res.
of 15th Dec. 1960,
which had not been
amended, it applied equally to the joining
conversations of April 1961, unless otherwise
stated.
Everybody agrees
that the alleged so-called LRC Law 24/61 of 1st Sept
1961 violated Art. 102 of the UN Charter and,
in the absence of a
written Agreement
between the parties, was unconstitutional and
illegal. Any conclusions founded on the
violation of a constitutional
provision
suffer from the cancerous base of an illegality, which
cannot be repaired, because the base is
illegal.
The so-called
Joining Law No. 24/61 unilaterally passed by the
Parliament of La Republique du Cameroun and
promulgated by its
President on 1 Sept 1961
could have no legal application to the
territory of Southern Cameroons which was still
a UN trust territory
until midnight of 30
Sept 1961. LRC Law No. 24/61 creating a
"Federation" with Southern Cameroons,
without there being a union
agreement with
that territory, collapses under the weight of UN
Charter Art. 103.
What Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) live with
now is an illegal
co-habitation with LRC.
There has been no legitimate union that
complies with international
law per the UN
Charter Art 102..
UN General Assembly Res.
1608 of 21 Apr 1961 fixed the date of 1st Oct
1961 as the date of the Independence of
Southern Cameroons.
The independence of
Southern Cameroons has been suppressed by La
Republique du Cameroun by Annexing the
territory and converting it
into two regions
within its own country.
CONCLUSION
If
a majority of Southern Cameroonians can tender proof to the
UN that
their independence has been
suppressed, and their territory illegally
annexed, their plea to exercise their
fundamental and unquestionable
human right
of self-determination will be granted.
That is the way forward, for the last straw has
been the
nationalization of the prime Jewel
of Southern Cameroons, the CDC,
which is
sitting on Bakweri prime land on lease to the CDC,
without
reference to the indigenous Bakweri
landowners and without
compensation!
Hello Southern Cameroonians
(Ambazonians), seeking a solution in small
camps has yielded no result. We must, as a
PEOPLE, unite, and seek
international
support to assert our unquestionable fundamental human
right of self-determination. The time is
now!
Oma nanu
Mola
\
On 7/4/16, 'M A N' via ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
> Dear Acham
>
There are more in stock for us. When one goes through
records of; -United
> Nations (UN) i.e
Fourth Committee, Sixth Committee, General Assembly)
> -International Law Commission
(ILC)-International Court of Justice; one will
> notice that these highest international
law making bodies had talked of a
>
Federation Republic of the Cameroons here and there in their
records but we
> are the very people who
are refusing to find out why? All we have been doing
> is looking at personality politics and not
standing in principles.
> We are at a
stage that every one is talking about action but less than
0.5%
> of us really know how we got into
the problem in the first place. If we
>
truly know how we entered the problem then it will be easy
to find a way
> out. If we know, it will
help us know who exactly is to be targeted are why.
> I here confess to our people that 99.5% do
not really know how we got to
> where we
find ourselves. The 0.5% that know are never taken seriously
or
> being heard because we do or like
personality politics and not politics
>
based on principles first before personality.
> From the volumes of records on the Trust
Territory of British Cameroons, if
> we
know what part the our leaders (Foncha, Muna and Endeley)
did during the
> decolonization process
of our country we will know how to focus are fight.
> Some will say Endeley's predict about
joining with Cameroun was to be bad
> and
it has come to pass --yet we failed to find out how Endeley
proposed
> alternative of joining but
Nigeria would have been good. Some will say Muna
> said our independence is on the ground, it
is only for us to bend down and
> pick.
He did not tell us that he told the whole world through the
General
> Assembly on the 17 October 1961
(just 16 days after 1 October 1961) that a
> perfect Federation Republic was in place.
Some will say that Foncha cried
> during
AAC I conference in Buea but he did not tell us that he had
a secret
> deal with Ahidjo not to
strictly implement the Plebiscite Pact references in
> 1608XV paragraph (5) in return of his
political post of vice president in
> the
fake Federal Republic Cameroon. The British knew this and
stayed
> silence.
>
> These our leaders did not tell us that,
they did not demand for complete
>
independence for the Southern Cameroons --their parties
being the first and
> second majority
parties in Southern Cameroons at the time. The voices of
> real nationalist like Kale, Manga and
Traditional rulers party (Fons) at the
>
Manfe Conference that were in the minority but were for
total independence
> for southern
Cameroons on its own were never stated at the UN when the
> question of our future was to be
considered. It is on records Foncha and
>
Endeley got the Southern Cameroons parliament to give them
powers to speak
> for people Southern
Cameroons. It is records that only their contrary
> parties ideas were tabled at the UN for
consideration. The complete
> independent
voice was never mention at the UN when the political leaders
of
> the Southern Cameroons went to the
UN after Manfe conference.
> One
important fact we must always is the Trusteeship Agreement
and UN
> Article 76b made mentioned very
clearly that the termination of the
>
Trusteeship will be according to the wishes of the people.
All through the
> process, the wishes of
our people that was handed to Foncha and Endeley was
> above the United Nations and United
Kingdom. So, what ever our wishes was to
> be the UN and Britain was to go by it. Our
leaders did not have voice as to
> what
our future would be for consideration. Their differences as
what we
> want became so messy that
foreign countries were worried. It was are leaders
> that were so desperate to go with Nigeria
or Cameroun. Even at a time,
> Cameroun
made it clear to the UN that it will never allow any
constitutional
> experts to enter her
country to implement paragraph 5 of 1608 XV because the
> UN has no legal right to dictate to a
sovereign nation. Cameroun voted
>
against 1608XV, yet our people were till bend to join
Cameroun as if we were
> cursed. It was
the wishes of people that British and the UN followed.
From
> UN records it is legally clear
that after vote of Resolution 1608XV (64
> infavor, 23 against and 10 abstention) the
UN main objective of Article 76b
>
INDEPENDENCE was achieved for the British Cameroons in
accordance to to the
> wishes of the
people. It is clearly seen from UN records that the
> implementation of paragraph 5 of 1608XV
(Terms of the Plebiscite Pact which
> was
Federation) was considered to be internal affairs of two
sovereign
> independent states. Take note
that the question of Northern Cameroons is not
> touch here, because they too have their
own way. The records are very clear.
>
>
> After United Republic
of Cameroon law 84/01 was passed, these our indirectly
> ganged up with Cameroun (Paul Biyia)
against the Ambazonian Restoration
>
Council under Gorji Dinka's leadership when Dr. Fonlong
handed to over.
> Instead of looking at
principles that a person stands for first, we are are
> looking but for personality. Our people
have been and are still the very
> ones
that are keeping us under occupation because, they and their
families,
> are the ones benefiting from
it. Are we sure the transfer of the CDC
>
headquarter to Yaounde is without the knowledge of our
people?
>
> I wish we
all take some time to read these two international legal
> interpretation on how the British
Cameroons termination of the trusteeship
> is viewed within international law. We do
not needs to seek for treaty of
> union
but just to tell the UN that the Federation Republic of
Cameroon end
> in 1984 period.
>
> 1 -ILC Legal Analysis
on UN Article 76b -Future of the Cameroons under
> British Administration
> 2 -ILC Legal Analysis of UN Article 76b on
Termination of the Trusteeship
>
Agreement of British Cameroons
> 3 -Muna
at the UN General Assembly meeting 17 days after 1 October
1961
> Taking action based on perfect
understanding of legality is the best way.
> The two must go together -- but then are
we there yet?
> MANAmbazonianDownUnder
>
> From: Julius
Acham <achamj07@gmail.com>
> To: ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 4 July 2016, 12:31
> Subject: BREAKING: COULD THIS MEAN THERE
WAS A UNION? MUNA"S DELEGATION TO
>
THE UN IN 1961
>
>
Muna's Speech at the UN GA Acknowledging Unification
& Independence of The
> Cameroons
> http://ambazonia.org/media/pdfs/Muna%27s%20Speech%20at%20the%20UN%20GA%20Acknowledging%20Unification%20%26%20Independence%20of%20The%20Cameroons.pdf
>
> Could this mean there
was a Union? Could this be the reason LRC, UK and UN
> are silent about our cases?. Could this be
the reason the UN said our case
> is
closed and the UK said we rounded up the UNION?This makes
Divine's
> suggestion of Foumban II
useless.This release by HRH Gorji Dinka must be
> taken seriously. Suggests that we focus
on 1984 and Law of creation and
>
dissolution of States, to win hands down.
> JA
> --
> 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
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.
--
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment