I think this was great effort on Dr. Tumasang's part for the good of the cause. But I wish to remind everyone of the fact that the closest we've gone to making sense with these lawsuits was Abuja, in SCAPO versus Nigeria, 2002 (I suppose) which secured a judgment demanding Nigeria stop treating Southern Cameroons as part of Cameroun; Abuja, 2013 in Ambazonia versus Nigeria which case uncovered a collusion between Nigeria and Cameroun with intent of having Nigeria keep former Northern Cameroons and Cameroun, Southern Cameroons. Ambazonia then demanded Nigeria stick to the Implementation of ICJ Ruling as we did when we demanded same in the Rejection of the Greentree Accord, 2006. And of Course the double rulings from Banjul....
My worry as a concerned citizen of Ambazonia is that we should have risen above such methods by now. What we must take note of and which appears to be missing in all of our reasoning except the Prof. Chia led UNO State of Cameroons is that consistent with international rulings over former Northern Cameroons cited below in Tum's; besides Fon Fongum Gorji-Dinka versus Cameroun at the UNHRC; besides the rejection of the Greentree Accord which we charged attempted circumventing the ICJ Ruling over Bakassi, which ruling is immutable, ie, can be changed only by the ICJ itself; and taking cognizance of the two Abuja Rulings, we must recognize that besides not being a state recognized by membership of the UNO, we would continue to face a deadlock applying more legal pressures. We have secured enough to raise our antis by additionally taking note of the following:
1. ICJ Ruling, using 1913 boundary with Nigeria invalidates the ruling over former Northern Cameroons in 1963!
2. ICJ Ruling invoking the 1916/1919 Anglo-French boundary treaty also well traced and pillars implanted from Bonandjo, Douala through to Lake Chad also invalidates the Case of Ambazonia as Southern Cameroons, as well as completely nullifies the UNO Plebiscite of 1961 and the subsequent evidence against Cameroun of 1608, which they voted against Union; this meaning that UNO cannot and could not have held Cameroun and Nigeria to different Standards over portions of the British Cameroons....
3. Hence, by handing the Map of LRC and that of British Cameroons, not Southern Cameroons, the UNO has given us a clear message about their future intent.
4. Given that LRC also clamped down on the Chia led UNO State, and given false pretenses by Cameroun in arguments emanating from preliminary hearings in Yaounde, that they did not know of the UNO State, a fat lie, especially given that in 2009, 53 members of the movement, including Prof Chia were arrested and detained on secession charges, and which bunch included militants from former Northern Cameroons, and even more, attempts at making the case to disappear met with an appeal from Prof. Chia in the Court of Appeal in Bamenda.....
5. Given that I was given a discharge and acquitted verdict when I made 19 appearances in 22 months of being under LRC Judiciary on two counts of secession:
I am wondering aloud what the heck our lawyers are arguing in Yaounde i he current legal showing over our arrested brethrens;
I am wondering allowed if we are not just dancing to the drums Yaounde is beating and especially given the inexperience of the SCACUF....
You getting my drift? My worry?
Are we not missing out on something while Pan-Camerounians and Federalist continue to buy time and play behind our back politics of the stomach?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, for last I checked, the demarcation of British Cameroons was completed with the completion of the latest "Berlin Wall" in Douala!
I remember well-well that when UN 1608 was uncovered in 1997, I wrote an interpretation and stated clearly that by not fulfilling the conditions stipulated therein, and worse, partly because Cameroun voted against it, implications go beyond expected Bakassi ICJ Ruling to affecting former Northern Cameroons! Our efforts with new contracts of law firms is wasted energy and senseless duplication because our people and especially lawyers have refused to read the letters of previous cases filed domestically and internationally--they are clearly fumbling the ball, as we say in American football. Why, the current efforts seeking ICJ had already been done by Ambazonia Republic in 1994 as well as in 1997 and ICJ replied stating it deals exclusively with State Parties. Edwin Ngang handled the Ambazonia-ICJ, USA Congress, US Secretary of State Communications. Please, lets stop unnecessary duplication that only waste our resources and time. What Ambazonia sought to accomplish in the ICJ Interpleaders was given to us on a gold platter when ICJ ruled at least seven time that Bakassi belongs to former Southern Cameroons, to Victoria Division of ..., to Bakassi Plebiscite District, etc, etc, and by implication demanding Cameroun show cause why "therefore Bakassi Belongs to Cameroon" must hold. The Ruling had hidden implications (Charming Betsey), which became clearer when UN issued a Communique 22/11/2011 demanding Cameroun submit withdrawal plans from Bakassi. Of course, not willing to put his signature on such a document, Professor Kamto Maurice resigned from the Cameroun government. See his resignation speech and how he argued how Cameroon's history has been mutilated because French Cameroun maltreated Southern Cameroons.
If Britain, which sold us like a cattle ranch, and who were quashed in a case at the Crown Court in 1997, when Fon Dinka was given the opportunity to rule in the case he filled against the Queen, Fon Dinka being of The Crown Court (Queen's Court, QC), decided to rule for amicable settlement, in the hope that in times like these Britain would champion our case, and now what do we see?---should remind us all that we are missing something, inasmuch as Precedence does matter and so those clamoring for SCACUF should torpedo Ambazonia, SCAPO, SCNC and SCYL, etc.,with not just their inexperience but also childishness and arrogance reminiscent of that of our oppressors of LRC---such persons should also know there is much they too do not now and that under international law, precedence matters......
Something isn't right, unless I am the one missing it! THE CAUSE IS STRANGULATED, HELD HOSTAGE BY YOUTHFUL EXUBERANCE, CHILDISH INFANTASY, IF YOU WISH AND THESE HAVE TO BE CORRECTED RAPIDLY!
Peace, not war, reason, not axiomatics!
Justice M. Mbuh (Ph.D.)
THE LEGACY OF AMBAZONIA (UN Trust Territory of British Cameroons): The Parliamentary Opposition, ...forged for itself a new role noteworthy for its dignity; and the government,..never attempted to withdraw...the legal recognition that was its due. Thanks to this...West Cameroon has won for itself the prestige of being the one place in West Africa (if not all of Africa) where democracy, in the British style, has lasted longest in its genuine form. --Prof. Bernard Nsukika Fonlon, The Task of Today, p. 9
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017, 9:48:10 AM GMT+1, Martin Tumasang <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
as we are all aware, there is communication in the internet with SCACUF logo that Le Hoag has instituted a case at the ICJ on behalf of Southern Cameroons. I cannot confirm if this information is truly from SCACUF or not because someone can be using the SCACUF logo to be spreading wrong information.
Assuming the information is from SCACUF, I wondered how this could have been done and stated openly that normally, there is only one way this could have been done, to wit:
1) Get a State Party who is a member of the UN and a Party to the Statute of the ICJ to bring the case on behalf of Southern Cameroons We have tried to do this for years but without success in getting Nigeria, Eritrea, Scandinavian countries, West African countries etc. to bring the case in the ICJ on behalf of Southern Cameroons. You can understand my surprise at this purported institution of the case at the ICJ by Le Hoag Solicitors
I went further and developed a new approach which has never been discovered/mentioned before in the struggle. I decided to go through a tonne of UN documents to look for a way out and found something interesting, to wit:
2) "Security Council adopted resolution 9 (1946) of 15 October 1946, provides that the Court shall be open to any State not a party to the Statute which has previously deposited a declaration, either in respect of one or more particular matters or with a more general ambit, whereby the State undertakes to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the Charter and to comply in good faith with the decisions of the Court. This provision clearly gives a window (albeit a small one) of opportunity for SCACUF/Le Hoag to deposit a declaration on Behalf of Southern Cameroons accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ, then try to get access as a non state party that has become a party to the statute of the ICJ." After the 1945 war, a situation as that of Southern Cameroons was contemplated and it seems an avenue created for non member states of the UN to access the court. If this turns out to be possible, it might be the greatest contribution to the struggle of Southern Cameroons for the past 25 years.
Conclusion
- As has been the case all along, our people flourish in lies and cannot stand the truth even if the truth will help them in the long run. When I came out boldly and said all this framing of the struggling in terms of marriage certificate, concubinage, wills etc. cannot be accepted in international law, many were very disappointed, called me agent of the system, etc. but in the long run I was right and that approach has generally been abandoned. The reason was not because I was wrong in terms of international law, but because the marriage certificate/concubinage approach was what they were familiar with and what they understood hence they could not easily abandon it.
- When I again came out strong and said we have made a fundamental mistake by framing the case in terms of UN Article 102, the same disappointment was registered, name calling and accusations took place but in the long term I was right and the UN Article 102 obsession has been tampered with reality that it has no moment in our case.
- In similar manner, when I came out strong that this joining and non joining of Southern Cameroons with La Republique du Cameroun cannot be decided by mere lack of Union Treaty, people thought I was crazy, but with the understanding of the requirements of international law, I stated that lack of union treaty is only step one and that after that, the "Intention of the Parties" must be looked at, check if the "Intentions were Achieved" (in whatever way or form) and if the "Parties Accepted" the outcome for there would have been a "Tacit Agreement" of a joining which international law might recognize. This issue was so recondite that many could not even understand talk less of accepting it but any international lawyer of good standing will tell you that notwithstanding how we might hate this, I am correct,
- Today I have looked at the issues again once I saw information that SCACUF/Le Hoag has instituted a case on behalf of Southern Cameroons in the ICJ. I do not believe they have done this but if they have, then they must have gotten a member State of the UN to bring the case on behalf of Southern Cameroons. I then developed a new approach we can use to access the court using Security Council adopted resolution 9 (1946) of 15 October 1946, which no one in the struggle knew of its existing and/or has ever mentioned it in relation to the struggle. Every Southern Cameroonian knows of UN Resolution 1608 (perhaps discovered and/or brought to the struggle by Justice Mbuh), but now I have discovered and brought to the struggle Security Council adopted resolution 9 (1946) of 15 October 1946 and state that it might be a most profound breakthrough to give Southern Cameroons access to the ICJ if we can work with and around the Resolution.
Regards
Tumasang
From: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Martin Tumasang tumasangm@hotmail.com [cameroon_politics] <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 02 July 2017 20:14
To: CAMNETWORK List; Accdf Accdf; Ambasbay CamerGoogleGroup; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: @Mishefon: Re: [cameroon_politics] SOUTHERN CAMEROONS: SCACUF/LE HOAG INSTITUTING CASE AT ICJ AGAINST LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN
Sent: 02 July 2017 20:14
To: CAMNETWORK List; Accdf Accdf; Ambasbay CamerGoogleGroup; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: @Mishefon: Re: [cameroon_politics] SOUTHERN CAMEROONS: SCACUF/LE HOAG INSTITUTING CASE AT ICJ AGAINST LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN
Mishefon,
must you contribute on every topic?, even those you do not understand what has been written?. There are many on going topics where you can contribute meaningfully but it seems this is not one of them.
One of our key problems has always been to have a right of audience in front of an international court such as the ICJ. We could only have that at the African Commission but its judgments or decisions are not binding and La Republique du Cameroun simply rejected even the simple decision to have meaningful dialogue with SCNC and Southern Cameroons.
When I gave sanctuary in my house in London for 6 months to late Dr. Ngumne, we tried to look for a country to take our case to the ICJ but failed. Various countries were contacted including Scandinavian countries. In Africa, we went as far as Eritrea who were sympathetic but claimed they were too far from Southern Cameroons and that we should try Nigeria. In fact the reason d'etre of the Abuja judgment was to force Nigeria to take the Southern Cameroons case to the ICJ. Obasanjo actually paid Freeman Lawyers in London to take our case but when he visited France, he came back and changed his mind and did not want to hear about our case again. Dr. Ngumne and myself had a serious meeting in the City of London with the Freeman Lawyers and at the end they were advising us that the easiest thing to do is to try and be within Cameroon as Scotland is within the UK which we rejected the advice for it was the easy option but not the best option given the antecedents of La Republique du Cameroun.
This problem of audience has been our no 1 problem. Today, for the first time, I have suggested an alternative approach which for over 30 years no one has considered it when I said "Security Council adopted resolution 9 (1946) of 15 October 1946, provides that the Court shall be open to any State not a party to the Statute which has previously deposited a declaration, either in respect of one or more particular matters or with a more general ambit, whereby the State undertakes to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the Charter and to comply in good faith with the decisions of the Court. This provision clearly gives a window (albeit a small one) of opportunity for SCACUF/Le Hoag to deposit a declaration on Behalf of Southern Cameroons accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ, then try to get access as a non state party that has become a party to the statute of the ICJ."
__,_._,___
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