- 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.
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