Monday, January 29, 2018

"Shithole" Propagandist Pro-Colonialist Media Organs!!! Useless, Miserable, Lying Media - TV5, France24 Worst of all CRTV

Shithole Propagandist Pro-Colonialist Media Organs!!! 

Useless, Miserable, Lying Media - TV5, France24 Worst of all CRTV

 

We are not handing over detained “Ambazonian” Leaders to Cameroon, said Nigeria to UNHCR (READ FULL TEXT)


In a release by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNHCR dated 24th January 2018, the Government of Nigeria is promising the United Nations that they will under no circumstances hand over the arrested Leaders of “Ambazonia” to the Government of Cameroon. This highly contradicts recent claims by France 24 and TV5 Monde that Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and other close collaborators were in fact extradited to Yaounde in the early hours of last Friday.

Let us better read the TRUTH below and forward till it reaches them, that the world has heard their empty headed utterances, and pro-colonialist agendas.

We feel sorry for those "shithole" media organs for the disgraceful role they have played in Africa not only in Cameroon, but which over the years have been involved in deceit, maneovring the masses of Africa, maintaining shameless dictators in power and making their agendas prevail over the people over whom they have lost legitimacy. 
These organs had better watched out, for the spy and misinformation agendas of France over Africa. This is just one in a myriad of meddling agendas in the African continent...


Saturday, January 27, 2018

QUESTIONS FOR TCHIROMA, By Atemnkeng

QUESTIONS FOR TCHIROMA, 

LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN (LRC) MINISTER OF COMMUNICATION, AND LRC ITSELF





1. What makes you think that Ambazonians should not rule themselves within their own internationally defined territory?
2. If LRC claims the right to govern itself within its own territory, why should Ambazonians not govern themselves within their own territory?
3. Is there anyone or any people, including LRC, who can claim a greater right to the territory and resources of the Southern Cameroons than the people of the Southern Cameroons themselves?
4. African tribes and human beings all over the world have often gone to war to defend their territory. Why do you think Ambazonians should not defend their own? Are Ambazonians right to defend their territory against the imperialism of LRC? Or is LRC right to claim the territory of Ambazonia?
5. You allege that Ambazonia is a part of La Republique du Cameroun. Do you have any treaty of Union or any instrument of Union between Ambazonia and La Republique du Cameroun (LRC)? Can you show the world that instrument?
6. Ambazonians are not contesting the territory of LRC, why is LRC contesting the territory of Ambazonia?
7. Cameroun quotes the fact that the Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) and LRC were formerly parts of one German Kamerun. Yes, that is right. Who gave LRC the purported right to inherit the former territories of German Kamerun? Under what law is LRC pretending to do that? There are currently parts of German Kamerun in Nigeria, in Chad, in Central African Republic. Why is LRC not claiming those parts? France and Britain were parts of one Roman Empire. Should Britain claim the territory of France or France claim the territory of Britain on that account? Should Rwanda claim Burundi because they were formerly one country? Is Cameroun’s argument not a betrayal of its imperialism? Who said that territories that formerly belonged to one country or imperial power cannot become separate countries? The Soviet Union has become several countries; so has former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc. How can LRC justify its colonial ambitions?
8. Cameroun has often also quoted the UN-organised plebiscite of 1961 as the alleged source of the purported union. Was Cameroon a party to the Plebiscite? How could a response made to a question posed by the UN to the people of the Southern Cameroons become some kind of contract with LRC? Was the Plebiscite an act by which the territory of the Southern Cameroons and its people were surrendered to LRC or made a free gift to it? Was the Plebiscite not about Southern Cameroons’ independence and only secondarily joining with LRC? How is it that Cameroun is interpreting the Plebiscite as the act by which it got possession of the Southern Cameroons or by which a free gift was made of the people of the Southern Cameroons and their territory to Cameroun?
9. If the plebiscite was about Southern Cameroons independence, which the UN actually followed up and voted overwhelmingly to grant in Res. 1608(XV), where is the independence today?
10. Even, grant the Plebiscite (which we do not), should the territory of the Southern Cameroons become that of LRC? Is Cameroun not using the Plebiscite only as a ploy to colonise and annex the Southern Cameroons? When did the people of the Southern Cameroons cede their territory and life to LRC?
11. You claim the existence of a union between Ambazonia and LRC, where are the instruments of union? What are the terms of your alleged union? Do you admit that only the relation between a master and slave has no terms?
12. Cameroun in one breath claims there was a union; then in another claims that Ambazonians have no right to speak of their own state which purportedly joined LRC; it denies the people of Ambazonia the right to question the fate of their own state in the pretended Union; it takes all steps to delete from the memory of the people of Ambazonia everything about their own state and history; it imposes its own language on the people of Ambazonia; it refuses to accept English as the official language in Ambazonia; it jails all Ambazonians who question the jurisdiction of LRC within Ambazonia. Do all these evils not continually prove beyond all doubts that LRC now treats Ambazonia and its people as a colony? That it has annexed and subjugated Ambazonia?
13. If LRC alleges a union, why does it refuse the people of Ambazonia from speaking as the other party to the Union you claim to exist? Should Ambazonians not be able to speak as the other party to the alleged union? Can you allege a union and at the same time claim that only LRC has the right to decide everything and to own everything in the so-called union?
14. What will you call an alleged union in which the other party is denied the right to speak, to assemble, to withdraw, to question anything about the union; in which there are no terms and no treaty of union; in which one of the parties has no rights; in which one party confiscates the territory of the other and has the right of life and death over the other? How is such a so-called union different from imperialism, colonisation and annexation?
15. Can you cite one single article of the AU Constitutive Act or the UN Charter which gives LRC jurisdiction over Ambazonian territory?
16. The principle is firmly established in international law that the boundaries of every state are confined to the boundaries it inherited on its day of independence (Art. 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act). Should this principle apply to the boundaries of LRC?
17. There is an international boundary that separates the territory of Ambazonia from the territory of LRC. That boundary was established between France, whose territory LRC inherited and Britain, whose territory the Southern Cameroons inherited. France never contested the boundary, why should LRC contest it? Is there any other treaty that has changed that boundary?
18. LRC has been speaking without citing a single principle of international law which gives it jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons territory. Ambazonians base all their arguments on the principles of international law, especially the AU Constitutive Act, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the UN Charter. Why has Cameroun been unable, even once, to cite one single principle to substantiate its claims?
19. Is Cameroun willing to accept dialogue based on international law or under international auspices? Or is Cameroun so terrified of the truth that it wants to continue to live through the gun and propaganda alone? Is this not armed robbery?
20. Your former President, Ahidjo, repeatedly vowed to the UN that Cameroun was not annexationist and would not use its size to annex the Southern Cameroons. Why has Cameroun annexed the Southern Cameroons? If you deny annexation, how then has a state which had its own Prime Minister, Civil Service, state institutions, suddenly ceased to exist?
21. Are you aware that Res. 1608(XV) of 21 April 1961 whose implementation would have led to a valid legal union between the Southern Cameroons and LRC was never implemented?
22. Are you aware that LRC voted against union with the Southern Cameroons in Res. 1608(XV) of 21 April 1961?
23. Are you aware that according to Article 102(1) of the UN Charter any alleged union between a member of the UN and another territory or any alleged treaty whatsoever that is not reduced into writing and filed at the UN Secretariat is null and void?
24. Don’t you realize that the methods LRC is using today against Ambazonians: those of violence, killings, abductions, terror, rape, intimidation, torture, burning of homes and mass killings have failed very where, including even in Nazi Germany? What makes you think that they will succeed because Cameroun is using them when they have never succeeded anywhere?
25. We have heard so much from the Cameroun government telling the world that only a small fraction of Ambazonians want independence; that the majority want to stay with Cameroun. What makes Cameroun believe that it has the right to speak for Ambazonians? Is Cameroun willing to accept a referendum organized and supervised by the United Nations to determine what the people of Ambazonia want? Is the fact that Cameroun is purporting to speak for Ambazonians more proof of its subjugation of the people of AMBAZONIA?

By Atemnkeng

ALL AMBAZONIANS, LETS READ THIS FOR OUR ENCOURAGEMENT





Dear friends, there's a very important piece of history I'll like to share with you which concerns you.

On December 1, 1955, a middle-aged "negro woman" in America, Mrs. Rosa Parks, refused to stand up for a young white man who just entered the segregated bus she was ridding in. If she did, she would have had to stand all through the journey. 

At that time, the bus is segregated in most parts of America: white people sit in front rows and black people sit from the back. Blacks would normally pay fare to the driver in the front, then step out of the bus and go through the back door to find a place in an already tight area at the back. If the allocated spaces for blacks are filled, all other blacks joining the bus would have to stand even when the more than half of the bus spaces reserved for whites are empty! Such was the injustice and humiliation that black Americans faced then.

For refusing to stand up for the young white man, Mrs Rosa Parks was immediately arrested, scheduled for prosecution on Monday December 5. Then the Rev. Martins Luther King and his NAACP comrades stepped in. They called out the people. They spoke about the sad realities of their existence, the terror of an unjust system and barbaric treatments in the hands of fellow Americans. 

In addition to speaking out, these Black Americans decided to take action to protest that injustice by boycotting the segregated buses. The boycott began December 6, 1955.

Dear friends, here is the crux of the matter: Black Americans took action! For 1 year and 16 days, *they trekked to and from work or boarded improvised pooled taxes, everyday*, until the US supreme courts declared segregation unconstitutional! 

During the struggle, someone offered one tired black woman a lift in his pool car, but she declined, saying, *"l ain't trekking for myself, but for my children and grandchildren "*!

So, dear friends, whenever we don’t take action and we feel unobligated, unconcerned,* we should simply remember the black Americans and those women. Without them, the freedom that US enjoys today wouldn't have happened, or happened too late.

Obama may not have become the President of US.

So, the questions before all of us now are: Are we live slaves to LRC? Are you ready to trek for yourself and your generation yet unborn as the black Americans did? Are we willing to do our own little bits to liberate ourselves, children and future generations and the Republic of Ambazonia from colonialism,bondage,slavery,servitude, etc? Are we ready to act? 

If the answers are in the affirmative, then the time to act is now.Let's all raise as one man and fight LRC till total liberation. God is with us.


A LUTA CONTINUA,VICTORIA ASCERTA.

"Biya cannot survive this thing" by Jonathan Awasom




The government cannot win with war and massacre and soon, I will be changing my song from dialogue to referendum, you wanna know why,  
Read this inspiring piece reflecting on Tchiroma interview yesterday, must read 
Shared as received 

I still believe that the referendum must happen because there is no other way the UN will resolve the issue. 

With the growing refugee crisis and continuous attacks , destruction of homes and lives , a severe humanitarian crisis is in the making and self interest of nations will crystallize soon when their investments are obviously at risk now. Political instability is the worst nightmare of foreign investors no matter who. So, they are already becoming uncomfortable because they thought Biya would resolve or contain the crisis. 

That means they will soon have to succumb to the people and not to the regime. That is why I suggested that the people should not be silent over the burning down of their homes and the carnage.

Biya cannot survive this thing in the long term and the same international bodies are only interested in their long term interests in that region with geopolitical implications 

They want stability and right now there is no stability ,which means this war can drag on for a while since neither Biya nor the ambazonian fighters are giving up. Someone has to stop attacking the other but the Biya's regime are to blame for killing, arresting and locking up anglophones since December 2016 simply because of a peotest against marginalization.

There is no guarantee that both sides might be armed by the international bodies but based on the power of negotiation, diplomacy and perhaps fate, I think anglophones will prevail. Truth is key to all these. I cannot understand a regime can hate a people whom you want to have a continuous union with ? 

They will fail because of the historical context of referendum which Biya's minister of miscommunication alluded to and misspoke to begin with during an interview yesterday. 

He said that the UN conducted a referendum in 1961 which resulted into the present attachement/ union. As shortsighted as he is, he failed to state that there was another referendum in 1972 that was not sanctioned by the UN. That is the one ,which i am contesting because why did LRC conduct another referendum in 1972 undermining the authority and jurisdiction of the UN under international law? 

So, if they see him and his government as a problem and not a solution, they will abandon him. The basis of this is the unity of anglophones and respect for due process . That is why I stand for referendum because the situation requires three possible solutions . 

1. Either UN simply declares that the 20th May 1972 referendum orchestrated by LRC was illegal and then reinstate the former two states federation neccessitated by UN resolution 1608(5) of April 21st 1961 or 

2. The UN simply bows to our request for another referendum to give everyone the opportunity to vote on YES or NO. That means all anglophones no matter where you stand will vote and afterwards we will comply with the outcome. To me referendum is the platform of dialogue moving forward because it is an international recognized instrument for peaceful resolution of such political crisis . Besides , we are not foreign to the idea based on history. 

3. The next question is how will the referendum be conducted or how will that happen and who will authorize it ? 

To be continued 


Jonathan Awasom

Friday, January 12, 2018

*CAN THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS BE EXTRADITED?* by Dr. Mbeli Valentine Tebi, *Courtesy BA SAMA II.*



A MUST READ BY LAWYERS*. 

*Please take a time and read this post from Dr. Mbeli Valentine Tebi. He holds a PhD in law from Nigeria and is currently the dean of the faculty of law in a Ugandan university*. 

He explains the worries most of us have on the arrest of the leaders of Ambazonia. 

*CAN THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS BE EXTRADITED?*

*INTRODUCTION*

A few days ago i wrote on the arrest of the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia by the Nigerian authorities apparently at the behest of the Cameroonian authorities. In that write-up i dwelt more on the socio-political dimensions of the arrest and how possibly it will play out. 
In this piece, i intend to engage some topical legal issues relating to extradition in particular of whether those arrested are extraditable. 

*WHAT IS EXTRADITION?*

For purposes of this article, i will like to adopt the definition of the Nigerian Court of Appeal in George Udeozor v Federal Republic of Nigeria, where it defined extradition as "the process of returning somebody, upon request, accused of a crime by a different legal authority to the requesting authority
for trial or punishment". In other words, extradition is a legal process where one jurisdiction known as the requested state is made to deliver to another jurisdiction known as a requesting state, a person or persons accused or convicted of crime in the requesting jurisdiction. Such a person or persons are therefore returned to face trial or serve any punishment validly handed down by a court of competent jurisdiction in the requesting state. 

*LAWS GOVERNING EXTRADITION*
 
As a rule of international law, extradition is not automatic i.e. there is no obligation on states to extradite suspects or offenders to other sovereign states. To that extent, extradition is largely regulated by conventional international law through the instrument of treaties. This rule however operates subject to an exception as we shall see subsequently.

 Even where there exists an extradition treaty allowing a sovereign state to arrest and deliver a fugitive to another state to stand trial of serve a punishment, there is an explicit legal procedure that must be followed. This procedure is espoused in the relevant statutory instruments. A key point to note is that extradition is not simply an arrest and handover process. It has to go through the rigorous process of court adjudication where an application to that effect may either be granted or rejected. A decision not favourable to any party to an extradition suit may equally be appealed through the relevant appellate channels to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court. 

That having said, it is important to address the question as to the applicable law in extradition cases. Where there exist a valid extradition treaty between two sovereigns, and a request has been duly made by the requesting state, the matter has to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the requested state in which case the applicable law is that of the requested state. 

Assuming without conceding that a request has been duly made by Cameroon to Nigeria to arrest and deliver the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, it will follow from the foregoing analysis that the applicable law will be that of Nigeria.

In Nigeria, there is a plethora of statutory instruments governing extradition proceedings. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended lays down a broad legal framework which vest exclusive jurisdiction to hear extradition matters in the Federal High Court. The constitutional framework is operationalised by a number of legislative and regulatory instruments, notably, the Extradition Act and the Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules 2015. 

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTRADITION*

It has already been mentioned that the existence of a valid extradition treaty is condition sine qua non for extradition to take place. This stems from the fact that there is no obligation under international law to extradite. It equally resonates with the rule of international law that parties to a particular treaty should be bound by their agreement (pacta sunt servanda).

Following this principle, the court in George Udeozor v.Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that "the right of one State (country in the present circumstance), to request of another, the extradition of a fugitive accused of crime, and the duty of the country in which the fugitive finds asylum to surrender the said fugitive, exist only when created by a treaty"
Riding on the principle of law and the decision of court cited above, it may easily lead to the conclusion that the Nigerian Court will be in want of jurisdiction to grant an extradition order for the simple fact that there is no extradition treaty between Nigeria and Cameroon. 
However, it does not end there. There is indeed a leeway which the government of Cameroon may likely exploit. This comes from the categorisation of states under the Nigerian Extradition Act. Aside the general rule that the Extradition Act is only applicable to a State that has an extradition treaty with Nigeria, the Act, by way of exception makes special recognition of Commonwealth states under section 2 (1) in that that the Act is applicable to “every separate country within the Commonwealth" The necessary implication here is that in the absence of an extradition treaty, extradition proceedings are still maintainable having regards to section 2(1) of the Extradition Act. This is similar to the common law principle of rendition. 

But still this does not come cheaply as the court is bound to take into consideration all material facts and principles of law relevant to extradition. While it is clear on the face of it that Cameroon can make an extradition request to Nigeria on the strength of its membership of the Commonwealth as guaranteed under section 2(1) of the Extradition Act, it remains arguable whether the Attorney General of Nigeria can successfully initiate and secure the granting or an extradition order by the Federal High Court. This takes us to the procedure for extradition under Nigerian law.

*PROCEDURE FOR EXTRADITION*
 
Attention must be brought to the fact that an extradition proceedings is in many ways similar to any other court proceedings with the parties relying on all relevant facts and the court guided by the rules of evidence in particular of relevancy and admissibility. 
The procedure for extradition starts with a request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal, made in writing to the Attorney-General of the Federation of Nigeria. The request is made by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of the country making the extradition request. Upon receiving the request, the Attorney-General has the discretion as to whether or not to initiate extradition proceedings. The discretion of the Attorney-General means he cannot be compelled by order of mandamus or otherwise to initiate extradition proceedings where he has exercised the discretion to not proceed. 

Where the Attorney General opts to initiate extradition proceedings, he makes a substantive application to the Federal High Court alongside the relevant supporting documents as required by the Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules. On the basis of the application, an extradition hearing is then slated with the A.G first addressing the Court and arguing for the surrender of the fugitive to the requesting state. Where the court makes an order for the extradition of the fugitive then he may be surrendered after the time stipulated by the order.

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE

 *DEFENCES AGAINST THE EXTRADITION REQUEST OF CAMEROON AGAINST THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS?*

Should it turn out that the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria decides to make a substantive application to the Federal High Court for an extradition order against the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, this will be a fiercely contested legal battle where the standard of proof must be beyond all reasonable doubts. Here are some possible line of defences that may be explored by Counsel to the respondent. 
Failure to convince the court that the application for extradition order is incompetent for want of an extradition treaty between Nigeria and Cameroon, Counsel may proceed to argue that the offences alleged to have been committed by the leaders are not extraditable offences. This can successfully be argued within the ambit of the Nigerian law. 

1.) It is trite law that an extradition order will not been granted where it is aimed at prosecuting or punishing the fugitive on account of the fugitive’s race, religion, nationality or political opinions. See Section 3(2) (a) Extradition Act. Political offences are clearly not extraditable. According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Country Office Nigeria these offences are "acts or conducts that are directed against government or sovereign authorities of state without elements of common crime. These crimes violate the State and not any individual person". Examples of political offences have been given by Kenelly J.J. to include: treason, sedition, espionage and to a large extent disagreement with state ideology. The crimes alleged to have been committed by the Ambazonian leaders by all descriptions fit the notion of political crimes which as earlier indicated, are not extraditable.
2.) The likelihood of an unfair trial in the requesting country. The idea behind extradition is not to try the accused for alleged crime but to ensure that the fugitive is delivered to face trial under the relevant penal laws of the requesting country. Although rules of private international law forbid the application of foreign penal laws in Nigeria, the Nigerian court must however take cognizance of the basic rules of criminal procedure, in particular of the right to fair hearing. Therefore even where the offence committed by the fugitive is not political and is otherwise extraditable, an extradition request will nonetheless be rejected if the fugitive offender is likely to be prejudiced at his trial, or to be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. If the Attorney General makes a request for extradition and the fugitive will be subjected to an unfair trial or unlawful discrimination in the requesting State, the fugitive may prove the relevant facts to the notice of the Judge. A clear case of impermissible unfairness that is likely to result from the extradition of those arrested and which the Nigerian court must remain alive to is the fact that the said offences are to be tried by a military tribunal in clear violation of the fundamental rule of criminal justice which forbids the trial of civilians in military court. Under the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, it is a mandatory ground for refusing extradition if the offence for which extradition is requested is an offence under military law. 
3.) Torture. The Nigerian Court will not grant an extradition order where there is incontrovertible evidence to show that the fugitive criminal will be exposed to torture by the requesting state. This is because Nigeria is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 3 of the Convention expressly prohibits state parties from expelling, returning “refouler”, or extraditing any person to a state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Evidence gathered from the Maximum Security Prison in Yaounde, the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment administered on prisoners, and most especially those hidden in BUNKERS can all attest to an eminent danger of torture. It fact, there is informed public opinion that a release of the leaders of Ambazonia will mean releasing for execution and nothing less. The is a strong point which the court can rely on to dismiss any application for an extradition order.  
In summation, the Ambazonian leaders stand a good chance of challenging the the request for their extradition by the Federal Government of Nigeria to Cameroon.

*JUST TO INCREASE THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OF LAWYERS ON EXTRADITION LAW.* 

 *Courtesy BA SAMA II.*


Britain has a responsibility to put pressure on Paul Biya’s government by Jackie Fearnley



Jackie Fearnley writes about the desperate plight of the Southern Cameroons and says Britain has a responsibility to put pressure on Paul Biya’s government
 President Paul Biya of Cameroon
 President Paul Biya of Cameroon. Photograph: Carlo Allegri/Reuters


Letters

Sun 7 Jan ‘18 19.16 GMT Last modified on Sun 7 Jan ‘18 22.00 GMT
 View more sharing options
Shares
295


I’d like to draw attention to the plight of political prisoners in Cameroon (Cameroon split as anglophones call for creation of ‘Ambazonia’, 3 January). I am in touch with some of those enduring horrible conditions in the notorious, severely overcrowded prison of Kondengui, many of whom have been there for over a year. Every few weeks they are brought before a military tribunal (which can impose the death penalty) but each time they appear, no witnesses are present and no case is brought. Some of them will appear again on 19 January and they are appealing for journalists and human rights organisations to be present to witness this cruel charade. They would like pressure to be brought on the government of Paul Biya to end this inhumane treatment of protesters. While there are so many in prison, and others unaccounted for, there can’t even be any thoughts of dialogue, nor can the thousands of people forced to flee to Nigeria come back while they have no assurance of safety.

Since decolonisation there have been two plebiscites: the first when the ex-British Southern Cameroons were offered only the choice of joining La République du Cameroun in a federation or of becoming part of Nigeria, then a second vote 10 years later when they were asked if they would like to become part of a unitary state (thus losing the federated status and their star on the flag), and were apparently offered the choice of oui or yes (ie no choice).

France, Britain and the UN must bear some responsibility for this unfortunate marriage which has failed so disastrously. Promises of fair and equal treatment have not been kept and Cameroon is a state that is bilingual only in name. Any activity seen as threatening the power of Paul Biya is punished with detention (usually without trial) and brutal treatment, as witnessed by the numbers of Southern Cameroonians who come to claim asylum here and are accepted as clients by Freedom from Torture.

It is high time that the Southern Cameroonians, who have been recognised as a people by the UN, were rescued from injustice, social and economic marginalisation, persecution and the misappropriation of their resources and at long last given a voice. Instead of standing helplessly by and watching the escalation of a genocide, perhaps a helpful step would be if Great Britain could initiate a resolution for a referendum to be conducted through the good offices of the UN with questions to ascertain how many anglophones from NW and SW Cameroon would like to remain in this union, how many would like a true federation (of respected equals) and how many would like complete independence. Another relevant action might be to make it known that Cameroon risks being expelled from the Commonwealth for failing to respect the rule of law, observation of which is a basic requirement for membership.
Jackie Fearnley

York

The African Bar Association is CATEGORICAL on the Nigeria and the LRC Dictatorship Conspiracy


Rumours of Abduction and Assassination Plans by Carlton Essong in Y’DE.



Assassination and Abduction Dossier Opened on the Right Rev Dr Andrew F. Nkea, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Mamfe - Cameroon. 

Creditable information filtering from the high Command in Cameroon indicates that the Military Colonel in Mamfe and Senior Divisional Officer of Manyu in the South West Region of Cameroon have initiated and submitted a dossier on the Bishop of Mamfe - the Right Rev Bishop Andrew F Nkea. This dossier has reached the high office of the demonic President Biya who has seen clergy and religious leaders as thorns in their ucurltic practices. But Bishop Andrew Nkea’s troubles are more to do with the Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) seperationists crisis. The Bishop among others had been dragged to court by the government of Cameroons agents claiming to be a consortium of parents whose children attended lay and religious institutions schools and colleges which were closed due to schools boycott in early 2017. The boycottof schools had been ordered by the Southern Cameroons freedom Movement and the Bishop is said to have told a high powered meeting in Mamfe that the doors to their schools are opened but he can’t force parents to bring their children to school. He even asked the Mayor of Mamfe to bring his child to school the next day and see if the doors wouldn’t be opened for the child. The government of Paul Biya have not taken it lightly. 
Of late; and based on information reaching us from those close to the High Command in Yaoundé on condition of anonymity, the Bishop’s show of Godliness to the victims of the military incursion and atrocities in his Diocese has not been taken kindly by the Military and the Biya’s insiders. 
The Dossier or file which has finally landed on President Biya’s table, cites the Bishop’s interview on BBC, Pastoral Letter and photos following the killings and burning of homes and houses in Kembong; which is one or the larges villages in Central Edjagham in Eyomojock Sub Division. They equally raised alarm to the Bishop’s visit to the refugees in Nigeria where he brought them widow’s might of food and supplies in the refugee camps and narrated their conditions to the media. 
Other sources close to the Roman Catholic Church in Cameroon indicate that the Apostolic Nuncio in Yaoundé and the Vatican have been briefed about Bishop Nkea’s safety especially now that the Vatican has remained silent about the massacre and refugee situation in what is now claimed as Southern Cameroons or Ambazonia. Would the Bishop of Mamfe be treated like Bishop Albert Ndongo of Nkongsamba by the Ahidjo and French regimes or will he be the next clergy to disappear or die of unexplainable causes? 

To be continued! 

Carlton Essong in Y’DE.

OUR FIRM WARNING
If another Bishop disappears again in the hands of this regime, it should be sure they will not know peace in 2018. Neither the people nor the Church is responsible for the untold evil perpetrated by the LRC government. *(Blogger)

Paul Biya and the art of elevating Sisiku AyukTabe by Seasoned Journalist Eli Smith




Paul Biya and the art of elevating Sisiku AyukTabe 

Do not despair. It is what one young man told me this morning and then he added curiously: "we are winning". What are you winning? I retorted, to which he calmly whispered:"Our restoration". Then I moved from my neighborhood to another one and ran into a group of Anglophone Cameroonians. They were conversing and one identified me and asked: "have you heard the news?" I replied: I suppose it is about the arrest of AyukTabe". He nodded affirmatively and told me: "learn to call him President AyukTabe". Then he said: "They have just made matters worst like they did with the consortium".

As I left them and boarded a taxi for Akwa, I felt that, the youngman was correct. And before I could settle at the French cultural centre, I got a phone call from a friend who sounded defiant: "Good things don't come by easily". And she added: "Those people who were on the fence must now understand that Biya thinks his dialogue is long overdue". She concluded: "soon we will have a country where peace will reign and it will be one of the most prosperous". 

Confused, I asked: "are you talking about this Cameroon?" She cried: "No! I am talking about Ambazonia". I didn't continue any further, I understood that what has happened in Nigeria is a kind of divine intervention to salvage this struggle from calapse. 

Paul Biya has by default helped give a revolutionary creditial to AyukTabe. In the underworld, you become, a leader not only after having murdered an innocent person, but after going to jail. In politics, especially that which has to do with fighting against despots, it's synonymous gangster acts. 

If you have not been arrested , harassed or go to jail, you are not respected. It was based on this background that, some people were contesting the leadership of AyukTabe. However, thanks to the maladroit gesture of Abuja and most importantly, Paul Biya, AyukTabe has crushed any revolt. 

He will come out of custody with a new tag: arrested abroad. Sisiku AyukTabe can say thank you to Paul Biya, but he has always been an ally of Anglophone nationalists. In 1984, he used his pen to create Fon Gorgi Dinka and now through his gauche act , he has put fuel in the tanks of restoration movements and more, Unite them. 

If after reading the above you still have doubts that Paul Biya is an ally, albeit by default to the Ambazonian course, then I don't what else to say or write in order to to convince you.


Seasoned Journalist Eli Smith

THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS SAGA -[ “A STORM IN A TEA CUP ?”] by Mola Njoh Litumbe




THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS SAGA -[ “A STORM IN A TEA CUP ?”]

Late on Thursday night Dec. 21, 2017 I was alerted by telephone that the Secretary-General of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Rt Hon Patricia Scotland QC, was in Yaounde for consultations with President Paul Biya of La Republique du Cameroun on the deteriorating situation in Southern Cameroons that has resulted in the massacre of unarmed Southern Cameroonian citizens by lethally armed troops on official orders of the Cameroun Govt. The information stated further that Secretary Scotland had agreed with President Biya to pay a day’s visit on Friday 22nd December 2017 to Buea in Southern Cameroons and would grant audience to traditional rulers at the Municipal premises, and to other personalities at the Buea Mountain Hotel as from 2.15pm. I therefore organized myself to arrive at the Mountain Hotel by 2.0pm.
When I was driving past the Consulate-General of the Federal Republique of Nigeria, my car was stopped by a menacing contingent of the Police Force who prevented me from proceeding further without tendering to them a formal invitation that I was to be received by Secretary Scotland. They all knew who I was, so I thought this was a deliberate attempt to prevent me from talking to Secretary Scotland. I then abandoned my car to them, and decided to walk to the Mountain Hotel where I went through all the security checks and then asked to be taken to Secretary Scotland’s protocol officer to register my presence. He then escorted me to wait in the office of the Hotel’s director and said I should wait there until Secretary Scotland was ready to receive me.
I became uneasy when I was not called for several hours and went out to enquire as to what was happening. I was then asked to wait in the Hotel’s board room, only for another protocol officer to visit and inform me past 5.0pm that Secretary Scotland had already left for Yaounde and that I could also go home.  
What follows is a an outline of the presentation I was to make orally to Secretary Scotland. My views on the subject matter are already well-known and that is why I was prevented by trickery from meeting the Rt Hon. Patricia Scotland.

STORM IN A TEA CUP
Over the past 12 months, or so, serious political differences have arisen between the former UN trust territories of French Cameroun that France granted “independence” on 1st January 1960 by the baptismal name of La Republique du Cameroun, with the former UN trust territory of British Southern Cameroons which the UN General Assembly fixed its date of Independence to be 1st Oct. 1961. 
After the second World War, the victors assembled in the city of San Francisco in the United States of America and, in order to save mankind from the scourge of a 3rd War, the previous war having ended only after the destruction of some 20 million human lives worldwide, and the use of the atomic bomb over Japan, it was felt that the world should be guided by the Rule of Law and Order to prevent a repeat of similar events which triggered the 2nd world war, and to control worldwide the use of atomic or similar military weaponry.
This is what prompted the Drafting and Signing of a Constitution for the World, known as the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, managed by six operating Organs which are: 
 (a) The Security Council, (the equivalence of a Board of Directors of any corporation)
 (b) The General Assembly (the equivalence of the supreme shareholders meeting in                                   
       any corporation)
 (c) The Secretariat, (headed by a Secretary-General as Chief Executive Officer)
 (d) The International Court of Justice (to settle disputes between member states of       
                   the UN)
 (e) UNESCO, and
 (f) The Trusteeship Council (to enter into Agreements on behalf of the UN with
                   sovereign Member states to foster Non-independent UN territories to 
                  independence)   
       
 
As the 2nd WW was triggered principally by the expansionist ambitions of Herr Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany who took delight in annexing smaller and weaker states, the UN Charter provided for this contingency in its Charter, Art. 102, which states thus:
“Art 102(1) 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 [UN] Secretariat and published by it.
 (2) No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.”

On 14 December, 1960 the UN General Assembly, as the supreme operating Organ of the UN, passed the landmark Res. 1514(xv), granting Unconditional Independence to all trust and colonial territories.  
At the material time Southern Cameroons was a UN trust territory and thus became a qualified candidate for Unconditional Independence.

The Resolution. provided expressly in para 5 that “immediate steps shall be taken in trust and non-self governing territories, to transfer powers to the peoples of those territories.”    
Therefore, for a colonial or trust territory to graduate to or attain independence from its trusteeship or colonial status, the Trustee or Colonial Authority had to transfer power over the territory from itself to the emerging independent territory.     

The dispute between the two Cameroon parties has arisen because UN General Assembly Res. 1608(xv) of 21st April 1961, fixing the date of 1st October 1961 as the date the British trust mandate over Southern Cameroons was to end, was never complied with, as there is no record of the transfer of power from Britain, as UN Trustee over Southern Cameroons to the indigenous Govt of Southern Cameroons, pursuant to the governing UN General Assembly Res. 1514(xv) s.5 mentioned above. It follows, therefore, that the People of Southern Cameroons did not graduate to independence from Trustee Britain, and therefore remain technically British protected persons until granted independence, so as to be in a position to negotiate a Union Treaty with La Republique du Cameroun to create a Federation of TWO states, EQUAL in status, as declared by the President of La Republique du Cameroun as to what he envisaged would be the terms of the proposed Union (see Exh. 10 at p. 29 of the attached 32-page Petition of the People of S. Cameroons to the UN General Assembly which was reported not received at the UN Secretariat although sent by DHL courier service from Cameroon).

You should please advise HM the Queen, Head of the British Commonwealth, that in the absence of Britain not being in possession of an Instrument transferring power over the UN trust territory of Southern Cameroons, that country did not attain independence and technically remains a British protectorate. The remedy is the cure prescribed in Art. 102(1) which requires the Union Treaty to be registered at the UN Secretariat “as soon as possible.” If this has not been done before now, HM Government should proceed to respect UN General Assembly Res. 1608(xv) which she voted for with an overwhelming majority of 65 other nations of the world, in an attempt to regularize the union. In the light of practical experience gained over the past half-century, it is my considered view that this may no longer be feasible, and in the interest of peace and security, the parties should be encouraged to go their separate ways.

Humbly submitted

Mola NJOH LITUMBE

Snr Citizen, Politician & Opinion Leader
Chairman of a Legalized Political Party
Holder of Southern Cameroons Corner Stone Award 
       by Southern Cameroonians USA
Washington DC, September 2nd, 2017.

EXHIBIT 10 P29.
ASSURANCES GIVEN BY REPLUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN’S PRESIDENT AHMADOU AHIDJO, AFFIRMING THAT LA REPLUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN WILL NOT CONTEMPLATE ANNEXING SOUTHERN CAMEROONS.
In 1959, some perceptive minds in the Trusteeship Council expressed concerns that after attaining independence in 1 January 1960, Republique du Cameroun could try to annex the Southern Cameroons. The Premier of French Cameroun, Mr. Ahidjo, denied any such intension or the possibility of any such action on the part of independent Republique du Cameroun.
At the 849th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN, Mr. Ahidjo took the floor and gave the UN the solemn assurance that Republique du Cameroun is not annexationist. He declared:
“We are not annexationist….. If our brothers of the British zone wish to unite with independent Cameroun, we are ready to discuss the matter with them, but we will do so on a footing of equality.”
In June 1960, he told the “Agence Presse Cameroun
“I have said and repeated, in the name of the Government [of Republique du Cameroun], that we do not have any annexationist design.”
In July the same year he again reassured the international community through the same press:
“For us, there can be no question of annexation of the Southern Cameroons. We have envisaged a flexible form of union, a federal form.”
(Above 3 paragraphs culled from Merits stage in Communication 266/2003 before the ACHPR Banju)
Attention is drawn to Art. 47(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Cameroon (Law No. 24/61 unilaterally enacted by La Republique du Cameroun on 1st September, 1961). 
“Revision
Art. 47(1) Any proposal for the revision of the present Constitution which impairs the unity and integrity of the Federation shall be inadmissible”.

As pointed out elsewhere, Law No. 24/61 merely changed the name of La Republique du Cameroun to La Republique Federal du Cameroun as no Federation was in fact created. By a clever but fraudulent maneuver, this clause was inserted to lure Southern Cameroonians into believing that a Federation had been permanently created and that the federal status was unchangeable. Future events were to show that La Republique du Cameroun was acting in extreme bad faith.