BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION: A LEGAL DIAGNOSTIC OF UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 1608, OF APRIL 21, 1961 by By: Justice Muluh Mbuh, S.G APEC Washington, DC, USA.

BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION: A LEGAL DIAGNOSTIC OF UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 1608, OF APRIL 21, 1961.

A Synopsis of the Tragic and Pathetic Tale of how Cameroun, a former United Nations Trust Territory, Recolonized another United Nations Trust Territory--The Republic of Ambazonia (The British Southern Cameroons) - in violation of International Trust, Responsibility and Obligation.

Introduction:

In 1916 the Armies of France, Britain and Belgium jointly defeated the Germans in the Kamerun and took over the territory, sharing it between France and Britain. The arrangement was made law by the Anglo-French Treaty of that same year. The Paris Peace recognized these arrangements, followed by the League of Nations in 1922 and then the United Nations in 1945. Both the League and the United Nations operated systems that protected former German territories as well as other territories not directly under the colonial authority of any superpower as Mandated Territories and Trust Territories respectively. Thus when it came to decolonization that is, granting self-government or independence to these territories the United Nations did make several blunders concerning German Kamerun, which by 1960 was represented as British Cameroons (Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons) and French Cameroun following the Anglo-French Treaty of 1916.

However, prior to decolonization, France had taken portions of Kamerun which it had ceded to Germany before the war and reunited them to French Equatorial Africa, leaving Cameroun as the biggest territory that was once under German Kamerun. While the territories reunited with French Equatorial Africa are not the subject of this paper, the British Cameroons, specifically Southern Cameroons and Cameroun are, because during the separation from 1916-1960 both territories underwent different political orientations which effectively gave them different cultures, educational and legal systems - and so it became important that if the two were to be reunited again, they had to be under some form of a loose Federation which effectively preserved their various sovereignties and hence, colonial heritage. The arrangements for the Federation were made under the direct supervision of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, which supervised the Trust Territories and reported to the United Nations General Assembly, and in preparing them for self-government or independence. What has come under scrutiny in this paper is the fact that the United Nations sponsored Plebiscite Treaty and subsequent United Nations Resolution 1608 of April 21, 1961, which demanded that contracting parties honor the results of the said plebiscite. The plebiscite was to decide the fate of the British Cameroons--the one part, Northern Cameroons that voted to join Nigeria as part of the Nigerian Federation, and the Southern Cameroons, which voted to join Cameroun in the loose Cameroon Federation. But ever since, the fate of the British Cameroons and the UN Resolution 1608 has been in violation by Cameroun, France, Britain and the United Nations itself now for forty years. This paper is written on with the assumption that the international legal instruments that created and paved the way for the Kamerun Federation amount to an international treaty, and that these instruments have collectively been violated by all parties, with the exception to the British Southern Cameroons. The British Southern Cameroons has invoked international law to reinstate its sovereignty, citing "a material breach of Treaty."

The Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda:

In international law, the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda (see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26) is the guarding angel of all treaties, agreements, declarations and conventions. It demands that all parties who contract them respect all such embodiments of treaties. In other words, all treaties are binding upon the contractors, unless they were mere "gentleman’s agreement." This same guarding angel can become a premise where we can begin understanding why parties involved in the 1961 United Nations-sponsored Plebiscite have not honored the treaty, and then use our deductions to make a solid case for the total independence of British Southern Cameroons in the name of the Republic of Ambazonia, now and as peacefully as possible before it is too late.

To understand the deceit that is characteristic of the illusion of Cameroun as a unitary state or as a Federation that never was, we ought to understand the said UN Resolution properly. Looking at the treaty (my use of treaty instead of stated resolutions and pacts is because it is more encompassing, given the string of international legal instruments involved in building the framework for the UN Plebiscite of February 11, 1961), we observe the following:

1) Cameroun, a Trust Territory in equal status with the British Southern Cameroons, voted against the Resolution;

2) France, the colonial master and administering authority of the French Cameroun equally voted against the Resolution;

3) All of French Speaking West Africa and Equatorial Africa, with the exception of Mali, voted against the resolution;

4) Cameroun was decolonized separately from the British Cameroons when it effectively gained independence on January 1, 1960, and so began exercising its right as a nation with a seat at the UN without Southern Cameroons or Northern Cameroons having attained the same status.

The United Nations Sponsored Plebiscite of February 11, 1961, was organized to determine the constitutional future of the British Cameroons--British Southern Cameroons and British Northern Cameroons, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the League of Nations and hence United Nations concerning Trust Territories. These territories had to, like other colonial and other peoples without representation, be led to the attainment of either "Self-Government" or "independence," in fulfillment of the aspirations and wishes of the peoples (see also the General Assembly Declaration Granting Self-Government or independence to Colonial and Other Peoples of 1960. This Declaration was a final pledge by various leaders of nations to liberate humanity from the malpractice of colonialism (decolonization). What is important here is the fact that the right to self-determination became equated with other inalienable rights, including the right to exercise sovereignty. Concerning the Trust Territories of the British Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons, the inalienable rights of the masses were protected in that they were given the free will, though with limited choices, to determine their future based in some part, on their affiliations with the neighboring territories and the historic evolution of the African peoples as a whole. However, a proper examination of the plebiscite arrangements would reveal just why the contracting parties failed to carry through with the resolution, and so in the end, have created more problems for the peoples of British Southern Cameroons than decolonize the territory. In this regard, the plebiscite was arranged in violation of the instruments that constitute international law, from the League through to the declaration granting self-government or independence.

Decolonization Difficulties and the Violations of International Law:

Firstly, and in accordance with the Covenant of the League, the United Nations Charter and the aspirations of humanity in time scheduled preferences; the Plebiscite was in violation of both the Covenant and the Charter. The League Covenant had warned that no clauses of the Mandate System, which was later to become the Trusteeship, should be violated by any nation or group of nations. It warned, and it was according to such warning that Namibia was freed from the illegal grip or attempts at annexation by South Africa (See ICJ Advisory Opinion on Namibia), when South Africa was threatened with sanctions and or expulsion from the United Nations should it annex Namibia. Concerning Namibia, the Court had warned that "a material breach" of treaty (see Article 60 of Vienna Convention, 1969/1980) occurred in relation for the mandate for Namibia (South West Africa), regarded as an international Treaty, and that South Africa had repudiated the treaty (R. Shabtai, 1985, Breach of Treaty). On Namibia, the General Assembly noted:

Open Quote: "The Resolution in question is therefore to be viewed as the exercise of the right to terminate a relationship in case of a deliberate and persistent violation of obligations which destroy the very objective and purpose for that relationship."(ICJ Report, 1971, p.16 at 47, Para. 94-95). Close Quote.

More specifically, the Charter went further to uphold and safeguard the warnings of the Covenant when in Article 76 (b) as in part in 73 (b) when it stated that the basis objective of the Trusteeship System was:

Open Quote: (b) to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of its peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement. Close quote.

Concerning the British Southern Cameroons, others, especially historians of French Cameroun who have re-written and distorted the history of British Southern Cameroons, have argued that when we consult UN Article 76, we should not only read portions of 76b, but also read the entire article. In doing so, they argue, we will understand properly why Cameroun had to use all means possible to accommodate Southern Cameroons. But even when we do so, (76a stresses that the trusteeship agreements should conform to Article 1 of the UN Charter, and (c) encourages respect for human rights which would encourage interdependence, while (d) stresses equal treatment without prejudice!), the case of the British Southern Cameroons against Cameroun recolonization and the failure of the entire Trusteeship System to stand to the task assigned them becomes even stronger, as nothing in the forty years of Camerounization (an ill-attempt by a former French Colony, Cameroun, to assimilate the people of British Southern Cameroons by tormenting them in order to force them to forget their Anglo-Saxon orientation) has been out to promote love, unity or respect for human rights, let alone, self-government or independence. The conclusion of this first instance of violation of the Covenant of the League and the Charter of the United Nations suggests that the UN had no mandate to organize the said plebiscite.

Secondly, the United Nations failed to take into consideration the facts of the history of the territories that once constituted German Kamerun. For instance, if we went as far back as 1916 when the Anglo-French Treaty divided the Kamerun after the joint defeat of Germany by the Anglo-French-Belgium trio, we observe that the treaty not only come under fire when the League still recognized portions and all of the territory as separate entities not constituting or accorded the same rights as former colonies of these colonial masters. By so doing, German Kamerun was effectively, though as separate territories, placed under the Mandate System! What this means is that when we apply decolonization to the territories that once constituted Kamerun, we ought to have decolonized them as a unit not as separate entities. If we had to ask foolish question of "either" "or," and only to the British Cameroons, we were effectively giving legitimacy to French Breach of the Mandate System and Trusteeship Laws by taking portions of German Kamerun and uniting them at their will, with French Equatorial African territories.

Effectively, the selective application of the principles of decolonization were bias--against all Kamerun and against the British Cameroons especially, and are in themselves a cause of the troubles of the present aspirations of the peoples of British Southern Cameroons and their demands for total independence. The mistake the UN made was that German Kamerun was never decolonized as a single entity, (even if we were to put aside the highly skewed argument that the Franco-German treaty which ceded portions of the German West Africa territory of Western Sahara (to Morocco) and in East Africa to the French in exchange for those France reunited with Equatorial Africa had collapsed, because the French defeated the Germans in World War I). This argument does not hold well with international law for the simple reason that those conquered territories of World War I did not effectively become part of the original empire of the conquering nations. Conquest was already being effectively resisted as a legal means of acquiring rights or title to territory, as can be seen by the fact that these territories were considered "Mandated" or eventually as "Trust Territories"!

Thirdly, the United Nations failed to give the people of British Cameroons a third option--that of total independence from either Nigeria or Cameroun. This was a mistake since a trust territory could not have attained either "self-government" or "independence" by joining another trust territory or another independent nation: Independence ought to be independence, no less and no more.

THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 1608 OF APRIL 21, 1961:

This resolution was approved to put effect to the plebiscite results, which made Northern Cameroons part of the Nigerian Federation and would have made Southern Cameroons part of the Cameroon Federation. While Nigeria did not have any difficulties implementing this resolution, Cameroun did for the reasons we already advanced at the beginning of this essay. Cameroun and all of French Africa, with the exception of Mali, voted against the United Nations Resolution 1608. Paragraph 5 of the resolution demanded that the contracting parties, that is Cameroun, Southern Cameroons, Britain and France should convene urgent talks, which would be supervised by the United Nations Trusteeship Council, to ensure that an agreement of the Cameroon Federation was reached before the termination of the Trusteeship of the Southern Cameroons.

Secondly, Cameroun had problems implementing the Resolution because an alien state was being injected into the French Empire. Southern Cameroons was Anglo-Saxon and Cameroun was Napoleonic or Gaullist. This means that they both had differences in legal, educational, and linguistic matters besides many others, which even the running of Federation sanctioned by the UN was close to being an impossibility unless both states safeguarded their individual sovereignties. Such arguments may equally be advanced by Cameroun in defense of its ways of attempting to make Southern Cameroons part of its territorial jurisdiction, but this will not hold well with legal arguments because they hold more for reasons to have given Southern Cameroons separate independence regardless of any other arguments to the contrary. However, several factors have contributed to making the implementation of UN Resolution 1608 totally impossible.

Difficulties in Implementing 1608:

1) The United Nations representatives (of the Trusteeship Council) were absent at Foumban Constitutional Talks to formalize the Cameroon Federation.

2) The Administering authority, the British, were equally absent at Foumban Constitutional Talks, leaving the British Southern Cameroons at the mercy of French Technical Advisers and Cameroun crude politicians.

3) French Technical advisers, eager to maintain treaties signed with Cameroun at independence which rendered Cameroun’s independent null and void (since France controlled Cameroun, defense, economy, currency, imports and exports, etc.), did all they could to ensure that the French policy of assimilation became the goal of the Cameroun politicians since an effective Federation would have given Ten deputies of the Southern Cameroons (West Cameroon) powers that would have automatically made Cameroun a democratic Federation and so difficult for the French to push around with their treaties. Besides, an effective Federation would have meant effect abrogation of those treaties since the succeeding State (Cameroon Federation) had to debated and renegotiated those agreements signed by the previous two states (Cameroun and Southern Cameroons).

4) The Ahidjo Foncha Accord at Foumban that adjourned the Constitutional talks was equally violated since Ahidjo did not honor it. Ahidjo and the Southern Cameroons delegation had agreed that amendments were to be made on the Cameroun Constitution, which will effectively serve the Federation purpose, and that Ahidjo’s government shall send the draft to the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly and the Cameroun National Assembly for deliberations that could lead to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. This did not happen because Ahidjo, shortly after, issued a Presidential Decree, which made the Constitution of Cameroun the law of the so-called Federation. This immediately gave birth to the Southern Cameroons resistance, which has now materialized in the Republic of Ambazonia, following Biya’s great blunder, which returned the Federal or unity system to the Cameroun Identity at independence with a similar Presidential decree in January 1984.

The Law of Treaties:

An understanding of what international law has to say on matters of breach of treaty can be easily found by examining the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, done at Vienna on May 23, 1969 and entered into force on January 27, 1980. It is important that we examine relevant portions of this legal instrument so as to have a better grasp of the conclusions that may arise from them. Since disputes of sovereignty are very common in escalating into armed conflicts, it is especially important that we understand the provisions of the Vienna Convention as they apply to the situation in the Cameroons and why, besides demanding a peaceful separation, it is equally important that Ambazonia continues to demand that Cameroun honor the terms of the Plebiscite Treaty.

Definition of Important Legal Terms:

The Vienna Convention defines a treaty as "an agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation." [Article 1, (a)]. The Convention defines ratification or acceptance, or approval, or accession--in relation to the international act so named as a situation whereby a state establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty.

The TWO ALTERNATIVES & UN RESOLUTION 1608 (xv) GAO UNTIL THE PHILOSOPHY WHICH HOLDS ONE NATION SUPERIOR (CAMEROUN) AND ANOTHER INFERIOR (AMBAZONIA) - SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER (FRANCE), IS FINALLY, AND PERMANENTLY, UTTERLY DESTROYED, EVERYWHERE IS WAR! Paraphrased from Bob Marley's "War" song.

Mr. Ian Macleod, Secretary of the Colonies for the United Kingdom narrates the content of "THE TWO ALTERNATIVES" which UN RES 1608 [xv] was supposed to implement.

Quote begins pg. 14:

"The Secretary of State had noted that the Premier [Foncha] of the Southern Cameroons had ascertained from the President of the Cameroun Republic that a Federal form of constitution would be acceptable. The following interpretation was proposed as being consistent with the second question, it being understood that the association of the United Nations with the post plebiscite conference mentioned in the text below would be subject to its agreement:

--[A vote for attaining independence by joining the Republic of Cameroon would mean that by an early date to be decided by the United Nations after consultation with the Governments of the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroon Republic and the United Kingdom as Administering Authority, the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroon Republic would unite as a Federal United Cameroun Republic. The arrangements would be worked out after the plebiscite by a conference consisting of representatives’ delegations of EQUAL STATUS from the Republic and the Southern Cameroons, the United Nations and the United Kingdom would also be associated with this conference].

[---- last sentence omitted----]

unquote! The aforementioned conference has never been held, yet Cameroun Republic and their government go about boasting and filing falsified claims to the international community how she exercises sovereignty over Bakassi and over all of Ambazonia, subjugates the latter’s masses to all forms of torture in attempting to force them into submission to Cameroun rule, which they consistently continue to resist as peacefully as possible from 1961 till date!

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 1608 (xv) APRIL 21, 1961 APPROVING THE RESULTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SPONSORED PLEBISCITE OF FEBRAURY 11, 1961 IN “AMBAZONIA VERSUS CAMEROUN” AT THE HAGUE-ICJ AND GENEVA-UNHRC (1994-2003) (6 PAGES)

--Extract begins ----

Resolution 1608 (xv) as submitted by the Fourth Committee, A/4737, and as amended orally by Guinea and Liberia, adopted by the General Assembly on 21 April 1961, meeting 994, by roll-call vote of 64 to 23, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:

Note: These are countries that believed that the union of the two Cameroons under a Federal system of two equal states would be a good thing!

Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Finland, Ghana, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Against: Note: These are countries that were against such a union citing the violation of the Trusteeship agreement, and noting that there shall be future political (constitutional), socio-cultural and economic problems!

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroun, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Leopoldville), Dahomey, France, Gabon, Greece, Israel, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Niger, Paraguay, Senegal, Upper Volta, Uruguay.

Abstentions: Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Togo.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Recalling its resolution 1350 (XIII) of 13 March 1959 concerning the future of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration in which the General Assembly recommended, inter alia, that the Administering Authority take steps, in consultation with the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, to organize, under the supervision of the United Nations, separate plebiscites in the Northern and Southern parts of the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration, in order to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory concerning their future, and that the plebiscite in the Northern Cameroons be held about the middle of November 1959 on the basis of the two questions set out in paragraph 2 of the said Resolution,

“Recalling its resolution 1352 (XIV) of 16 October 1959 whereby it decided, inter alia, that a plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons would be held between 30 September 1960 and March 1961, on the basis of the two questions set in paragraph 2 of the said resolution,

“Recalling further its resolution 1473 (XIV) of 12 December 1959 in which the General Assembly, having considered the results of the plebiscite in the Northern part of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, recommended the organization by the Administering Authority, in consultation with the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner, of a further plebiscite to be held in the Northern Cameroons under United Nations supervision between 30 September 1960 and March 1961, on the basis of the two questions defined in paragraph 3 of the said resolution,

“Having examined the report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner concerning the two plebiscites held in the Northern and the Southern Cameroons in February 1961 and the report of the Trusteeship Council thereon,

Having heard the petitioners,

“1. Expresses its high appreciation of the work of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration and his staff;

“2. Endorses the results of the plebiscite that:

“(a) The people of Northern Cameroons have by a majority, decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria;

“(b) The people of the Southern Cameroons have similarly decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroun;

“3. Considers that, the people of the two parts of the Trust Territory having freely and secretly expressed their wishes with regards to their respective futures in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1352 (XIV) and 1473 (XIV), the decisions made by them through democratic processes should be immediately implemented; “4. Decides that, the plebiscites having been taken separately with differing results, the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946 concerning the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration shall be terminated, in accordance with Article 76b of the Charter of the United Nations and in agreement with the Administering Authority, in the following manner:

“(a) With Respect to the Northern Cameroons, on I June 1961, upon its joining the Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria;

“(b) With respect to the Southern Cameroons, on 1 October 1961, upon it’s joining the Republic of Cameroun; “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 October 1, the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned will be implemented.”

ORAL HEARINGS:

General Assembly 15th Session (First and Second Parts).

Fourth Committee, Meetings 1004, 1010, 1012, 1066, 1086, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1105, 1108, 1120, 1127-1130, 1139, 1140, 1142, 1147.

-A/C.4/445 and Add.1-3, A/C.4/469 and Add.1-8.

Requests for Hearings.

-A/C.4/448. Note by Secretary General.

-A/C.4/490. Additional statement by Namaso Mbile, Cameroons People’s National Convention, Kumba Division, on Southern Cameroons.

-A/C.4/495. Statement by S.T. Muna, Minister of Commerce and Industries, Southern Cameroons.

-A/C.4/96. Additional Statement by Mayi Matip, Chairman of Union des Populations du Cameroun Parliamentary group.

APPRAISAL: by Justice M. Mbuh [2001] (Re-edited 05.03.2003) JUST WHY IS UN RESOLUTION 1608 SO CENTRAL TO THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO CAMEROONS [AMBAZONIA (British Southern Cameroons) AND CAMEROUN]?

1. The nations that voted in favour of the resolution might have had “unity as strength” as their guiding principle. But when we take a look at the said resolution, we have every reason to feel and believe that British Southern Cameroonians have been maltreated by both Cameroun and the United nations. From the said Resolution, we can make the following deductions:

2. A nation cannot become “independent by joining” another, especially if it is denied a seat at the World Organization. The case of the Republics that were part of USSR but had separate seats at the UN (and voted herein) is a glaring pointer! This condition secures the right of the parties to regain their sovereignty without necessarily having to pull much string, in case of material breach of treaty.

From (1) above, it is clear that the Trusteeship Agreement was already under violation, since “by joining” does not lead “to either self-government or independence” (76b)/(Declaration Granting Independence …)!

3. That Cameroun was among nations that opposed the Resolution and given that Cameroun has violated the Federation Treaty, besides the above Resolution demanding its implementation--both constitute gross evidence that Cameroun authority were not interested to have either a federation or unity of any sort with British Southern Cameroons. Thus Cameroun should not resist Ambazonian moves to form a separate Republic, which would fulfil Article 76b of the UN Charter and secure/protect the rights of her citizens.

4. France by virtue of its fears that Anglo-Saxon culture would 'pollute' and prevent them from exercising continuous neo-colonialism on its former colonies equally opposed the said resolution.

5. The Administering Authorities, in this case the United Kingdom did not do its job of ensuring that negotiations were conclusive before the stipulated date. Instead, what transpired was that Britain abandoned the Southern Cameroons at the mercy of French and Cameroun colonizers when it effectively pulled out of the territory one month to the date stipulated for the termination of the UN Trusteeship.

6. The UN equally failed to perform its role as supervisor of the process to decolonize the Southern Cameroons without necessarily compromising its sovereignty.

7. Evidence of the betrayal of Ambazonia (The British Southern Cameroons) by both Britain and the UN Nations is found in the fact that at the Foumban Constitutional talks, both parties were absent. Thus there was never any conclusive deal, which protected the Southern Cameroons from French and Cameroun intrigues.

Three things can be deduced from the above seven points:

1. Ambazonia (Southern Cameroons), even if we assume attained independence, stands clearly as an example of a none-state nation given that it was never given a seat at the UN.

2. By virtue of the fact that the Federation deal was never conclusive, everything that has been done in Cameroun in the name of unity and name-changing-syndrome aimed at colonizing Ambazonia is null and void ab initio, and must be considered not binding on Ambazonia (Southern Cameroons) which has clearly and effectively proven that there were unpardonable discrepancies in the unity process--which has led Cameroun to treat the Southern Cameroon masses as second class citizens and above all, refused to be lawful and accountable to/on the acts of government--acts of continuous aggression. Based on the above analyses, Ambazonia’s right to freely exercise its sovereignty can hardly be questioned, let alone denied.

3. The non-implementation of UN Resolution 1608 is glaring proof of a material breach of International Treaty and requires that the World Body actively take part in terminating the now too falsified relationship between Ambazonia and Cameroun before the situation turns into a bloody war of liberation.

AMBAZONIA PEOPLES EMANCIPATION COUNCIL (APEC) demands/suggests that the UN should redress this problem before it escalates into a full-scale war of liberation by granting Adult Membership to Ambazonia in the United Nations for a good start. The time to do so is now!

For more on the rights of Ambazonia as a State with all due rights having denied, see boundary treaties with Cameroun (Anglo-French Treaties of 1916, 1930; League of Nations Treaties endorsing the Anglo-French Treaties of 1916: 1919, 1922; see also Trusteeship Laws of the Trust Territories, UN Resolutions on decolonization, most specifically the General Assembly Declaration Granting Independence to All Colonial Territories and Other Peoples of December 5/12, 1960, the Terms of the "Two Alternatives" Agreement between Cameroun Republic's President Ahmadou Ahidjo and Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia's) Prime Minister John Ngu Foncha, and besides UN Resolution 1608 above, see also International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ruling over the disputed Bakassi Peninsula between Cameroun and Nigeria, in which the ICJ clearly identifies the territory "termed Southern Cameroons" but failed to cross-examine evidence presented by Cameroun claiming sovereignty of the said peninsula by way of the very plebiscite treaty under her glaring violation!

AMBAZONIA MUST BE FREE THE SOONER AND PEACEFULLY THE BETTER! STOP THE FLAGRANT AND BLATANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES BY CAMEROUN; RESTORE THE STATEHOOD OF AMBAZONIA REPUBLIC ("Termed Southern Cameroons"--ICJ) NOW!

1. Ambazonia is a nation and was never a vacuum!

2. Ambazonia had a government!

3. Ambazonia had and still has a population (6.5 million people)!

4. Ambazonia had and still has international boundaries!

5. Ambazonia had a parliament and still has a constitution: the southern Cameroons constitutional order-in-council, 1960!

6. Ambazonia had and still has international organizations and nations debating on her behalf, to the extent some even admit lies against her--case in point: ICJ Bakassi ruling!

7. and most importantly, the democracy imperative for good government: Ambazonians were and still are the most democratic peoples on the African continent with a record of having changed two governments without incident even before the infamous two alternatives and united nations sponsored plebiscite of February 11, 1961, together with their unimplemented un resolution 1608 of April 21, 1961!

IF THERE IS ANY INTERNATIONAL MORALITY LEFT, THEN USE IT TO FREE AMBAZONIA NOW

By: Justice Muluh Mbuh,

S.G APEC Washington, DC, USA.

ALL SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS SHOULD READ THIS Resolution 1608 Vs Cameroun by JusticeMuluh Mbuh

ALL SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS SHOULD READ THIS

Resolution 1608 Vs Cameroun by JusticeMuluh Mbuh

CAMEROUN: IMPLEMENT UN RESOLUTION 1608 OR PULL OUT OF THE AMBAZONIA NOW!
Cameroun: Implement UN Res. 1608 or Pull out of Ambazonia (UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons) with alacrity before it is to late to do so peacefully. See details of Resolution and appraisal Below.

The International Community should find Cameroun Republic in violation of the Law of Nations by charges of breach of international treaty (Treaty of Union with Ambazonia) and accordingly delt with squarely thus:
1. Dismiss Cameroun from the UN and all affiliated organizations if they should fail to comply;
2. Impose Economic Sanctions including the blocking of all material and immaterial international aid to Cameroun if they do not comply;
3. Utilize a UN Intervention Force(s) to force Cameroun to withdraw from Ambazonia Republic as was the case when the UN bombed Iraq out of Kuwait.

The citizens of Ambazonia (UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons) continue to suffer unjustly because of Cameroun's illegal occupation which has led to the surpression of intellectual thought, the Anglo-Saxon Common Laws and Educational System, deprived of any vital economic development and including the systematic destruction of the agro-base industries that existed in the territory prior to the lies of Unification. In fact, agricultural base is being sold out to French people, including Christoff (?) Mitterand, the Son of Former French President Francios Mitterand! The failure to respond to these demands would be considered as a green light that Ambazoians can act accordingly and use any means possible to flush Cameroun illegal land lords out of the Ambazonia and no one, no country should blame Ambazonia for destabilizing the region in terms of the wider geo-political nature and location of the disputed territory.
See full text below.
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 1608 (xv)
APRIL 21, 1961.
The Case of
“AMBAZONIA VERSUS CAMEROUN”

Resolution 1608 (xv) as submitted by the Fourth Committee, A/4737, and as amended orally by Guinea and Liberia, adopted by the General Assembly on 21 April 1961, meeting 994, by roll-call vote of 64 to 23, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

IN FAVOR:
Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Finland, Ghana, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Phillippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

AGAINST:
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroun, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Leopoldville), Dahomey, France, Gabon, Greece, Israel, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Niger, Paraguay, Senegal, Upper Volta, Uruguay.

ABSTENTIONS:
Columbia, El Salvador, Guatamala, Haiti, Italy, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Togo.

“THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
“Recalling its resolution 1350 (XIII) of 13 March 1959 concerning the future of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration in which the General Assembly recommended, inter alia, that the Administering Authority take steps, in consultation with the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, to organize, under the supervision of the United Nations, separate plebiscites in the Northern and Southern parts of the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration, in order to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory concerning their future, and that the plebiscite in the Northern Cameroons be held about the middle of November 1959 on the basis of the two questions set out in paragraph 2 of the said Resolution,

“Recalling its resolution 1352 (XIV) of 16 October 1959 whereby it decided, inter alia, that a plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons would be held between 30 September 1960 and March 1961, on the basis of the two questions set in paragraph 2 of the said resolution,

“Recalling further its resolution 1473 (XIV) of 12 December 1959 in which the General Assembly, having considered the results of the plebiscite in the Northern part of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, recommended the organization by the Administering Authority, in consultation with the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner, of a further plebiscite to be held in the Northern Cameroons under United Nations supervision between 30 September 1960 and March 1961, on the basis of the two questions defined in paragraph 3 of the said resolution,

“Having examined the report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner concerning the two plebiscites held in the Northern and the Southern Cameroons in February 1961 and the report of the Trusteeship Council thereon,

Having heard the petitioners,

“1. Expresses its high appreciation of the work of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration and his staff;

“2. Endorses the results of the plebiscite that:
“(a) The people of Northern Cameroons have by a majority, decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria;

“(b) The people of the Southern Cameroons have similarly decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroun;

“3. Considers that, the people of the two parts of the Trust Territory having freely and secretly expressed their wishes with regards to their respective futures in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1352 (XIV) and 1473 (XIV), the decisions made by them through democratic processes should be immediately implemented;

“4. Decides that, the plebiscites having been taken separately with differing results, the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946 concerning the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration shall be terminated, in accordance with Article 76b of the Charter of the United Nations and in agreement with the Administering Authority, in the following manner:

“(a) With Respect to the Northern Cameroons, on I June 1961, upon its joining the Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria;

“(b) With respect to the Southern Cameroons, on 1 October 1961, upon it’s joining the Republic of Cameroun;

“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 October 1, the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned will be implemented.”

ORAL HEARINGS:
General Assembly 15th Session (First and Second Parts).
Fourth Committee, Meetings 1004, 1010, 1012, 1066, 1086, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1105, 1108, 1120, 1127-1130, 1139, 1140, 1142, 1147.
A/C.4/445 and Add.1-3, A/C.4/469 and Add.1-8.
Requests for Hearings.
A/C.4/448. Note by Secretary General.
A/C.4/490. Additional statement by Namaso Mbile, Cameroons People’s National Convention, Kumba Division, on Southern Cameroons.
A/C.4/495. Statement by S.T. Muna, Minister of Commerce and Industries, Southern Cameroons.
A/C.4/96. Additional Statement by Mayi Matip, Chairmen of Union des Populations du Cameroun Parliamentary group.

APPRAISAL OF UN RESOLUTION 1608:

WHY IS UN RESOLUTION 1608 CENTRAL TO THE SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE BETWEEN CAMEROUN AND AMBAZONIA (SOUTHERN CAMEROONS)?
The nations that voted in favor of the resolution might have had “unity as strength” as their guiding principle. But when we take a look at the said resolution, we have every reason to feel and believe that British Southern Cameroonians have been maltreated by both Cameroun and the United nations. From the said Resolution, we can make the following deductions:

1) A nation cannot become “independent by joining” another, especially if it is denied a seat at the World Organization. The case of the Republics that were part of USSR but had separate seats at the UN (and voted herein) are a glaring pointer to this effect! This condition secures the right of the parties to regain their sovereignty without necessarily having to pull much string, in case of material breach of treaty.

2) From (1) above, it is clear that the Trusteeship Agreement was already under violation, since “by joining” does not lead “to either self-government or independence” (76b) of the UN Charter/(Declaration Granting Independence …of Dec. 14, 1960)! Besides if Trusteeship was terminated on October 1, 1960, why then was Ambazonia not goiven a seat at the UN? Why did the UN see it fit to utilize the plebiscite tool to decolonize the territory? Was this act an application or a violation of the law? And what more of the absense of the UN and Trusteeship Council and Adminstering Authority of the said territory from ensuring that Paragraph 5 of the said Res. 1608 was actually effected? How else can one not cry foul play?

3) That Cameroun was among nations that opposed the Resolution and given that Cameroun has violated the Federation Treaty, besides the above Resolution demanding its implementation--both constitute gross evidence that Cameroun authority were not interested to have either a federation or unity with British Southern Cameroons. Thus Cameroun should not resist Ambazonian moves to form a separate Republic, which would fulfill Article 76b of the UN Charter and secure/protect the rights of its citizens.

4) France by virtue of her fears that Anglo-Saxon culture would pollute and prevent them from exercising continuous neocolonialism on its former colonies equally opposed the said resolution. Moreso, twelve other French-speaking and former French Colonies in Africa (see "Votes Against" in said resolution above) voted against any such union between Anglo-Saxon Ambazonia and Cameroun Republic. Thus there should be no resistence from their part whatsoever on letting Ambazonia go her way, even though Cameroun President Paul Biya already made Cameroun secession from the Union a legal clarity/reality with his Presidential Decree 84/001 of January 1984.

5) The Administering Authorities, in this case the United Kingdom did not do its job of ensuring that negotiations were conclusive before the stipulated date. Instead, what transpired was that Britain abandoned the Southern Cameroons at the mercy of French and Cameroun colonizers when it effectively pulled out of the territory one month to the date stipulated for the take-off (LEAVING BEHIND ONLY A FEW OF HER MARGESTY'S SOLDIERS WHO EFFECTIVELY HANDED OVER POWER TO CAMEROUN PRESIDENT AND NOT TO AMBAZONIANS ON SEPTEMBER 30 AT MIDNIGHT) for what they wanted us to accept as our independence day and the commencement of the KAMERUN CONFEDERATION (NOT FEDERATION)!

6) The UN equally failed to perform its role as supervisor of the process to decolonize the Southern Cameroons without necessarily compromising its sovereignty.

7) Evidence of the betrayal of Ambazonia (The British Southern Cameroons) by both Britain and the UN Nations is found in the fact that at the Foumban Constitutional talks, both parties were absent. Thus there was never any conclusive deal, which protected the Southern Cameroons from French and Cameroun intrigues. International law regards this absence as a major breach of international treaty and breach of trust and so all the deals from there hence must be seen as having no bearing on the citrizens of the Ambazonia whatsoever!

8) That on October 13, Cameroun President Ahidjo imposed Cameroun's constuitution and national emblems on the peoples of the "Southern Cameroons" in violation of all pre- and post plebiscite agreements, which by UN Res. 1608 attained Treaty status, and so must be found in contempt of the Rule and laws of the Law of Nations.

Three things can be deduced from the above seven points:

1) Ambazonia (Southern Cameroons), even if we assume attained independence, stands clearly as an example of a none-state nation given that it was never given a seat at the UN.

2) By virtue of the fact that the Confederation (not even federation) deal was never conclusive, everything that has been done in Cameroun in the name and name changing syndrome of unity is null and void ab initio, and must be considered not binding on Ambazonia (Southern Cameroons) which has clearly and effectively proven that there were unpardonable discrepancies in the unity process-which has led Cameroun to treat the Southern Cameroon masses as second class citizens and above all, refused to be lawful and accountable to/on the acts of government-this making Ambazonia (a UN Trust Territory which suffers from the effects of international conspiracy and breach of international treaty) to pass as a Cameroun Republic colony in 2002! Based on the above analyses, Ambazonia’s right to freely exercise its sovereignty can hardly be questioned, let alone denied.

3) The non-implementation of UN Resolution 1608 is glaring proof of a material breach of treaty and requires that the World Body actively take part in terminating the now too falsified relationship between Ambazonia and Cameroun before the situation turns into a bloody war of liberation.

The Ambazonia Patriotic Front (APF) acting as custodians of the message of the Ambazonia Republic’s “Ambazonia Peoples Emancipation Council (APEC) program” demands/suggests that the UN should redress this problem before it escalates into a full-scale war of liberation by granting Adult Membership to Ambazonia Republic in the United Nations, with alacrity for a good start. The time to do so is now for time isrunning out!

Justice Muluh Mbuh,
Secretary General,
Ambazonia Peoples Emancipation Council (APEC), Washington, DC,
Founder, Ambazonia Patriotic Front (APF)

"Human rights are about the curtailment of the abstract and super state power, ie the limitation of absolute power corrupting absolutely"
Julius Che, June 1997- Buea.

THE MEDICAL REALITIES OF CAMEROUN

THE MEDICAL REALITIES OF CAMEROUN

The government only recently announced the creation of a Reference Hospital in Bamenda. After how many years? And why only NOW? If our hospitals and healthcare systems where good, why is it NOT used by all those privileged in the government? Do they think we don't know what is happening?

This is the truth. If you can not trust your life in the care of thesame healthcare system that you claim to have put in place for your citizen to use, why do you think those citizen must trust their lives to it?

We already know that you know the entire healthcare system in Cameroun is a disgrace. A country which can not even boast of one CT Scan in each regional hospital to handle traumatic cases in situations like road accident victims our people with possible stroke but has Ministers embezzling huge funds with impunity. Do you know how much a CT Scan cost?

One Entry level CT Scan ( for exam a Toshiba Aquilion Prime ) = 300 million frs CFA or ($500,000 at exchange rate of $1 = 600frs CFA

We all have seen one person recently building a mansion of about $40 million with ill gotten wealth from our state coffers. Say we only consider this amount, and by our calculation of how much a single CT Scan cost, that $40 million could buy a whooping 80 CT Scans. That's 8 CT Scan in every Region in the entire country. That means each Division may actually have one CT Scan.

Just let that sink for a second. And you wonder why our youths are unemployed and our universities are not designed to properly address the pressing needs of the society. After how many years did the University of Buea get an accredited medical program? We are too late in implementing the things that mattered in building a vibrant nation and staying in this union is parasitic for the people of Southern Cameroons, whose rich resources are being harvested with no development to show. Look at Mundemba! Has one of the worst roads in the nation but actually supplies all the oil that comes out of SONARA.

It's time for people to see that this Union is designed to enslave the people of SOUTHERN CAMEROONS for ever.

Good for you Rigobert Nsong, you are lucky to be one of the few privileged ones who have the outlawed dual citizen in Cameroun with your French Passport but can still BENEFIT from our state coffers to sponsor your medical evacuation to treat your cerebral hemorrhage. But as you enjoy your second chance in life financed by the kind citizens of Cameroun, remember that there are many of those same citizens who may have not died like you should they had your privilege status. Their lives is obvious does not matter to their government that made sure you had your medical vacation. Not only did you get well, you let thesame government use you to as a tour puppet as a symbol of UNITY? What UNITY?
We are happy for your second chance in life but if there's one least thing you can do for us the people of Southern Cameroons who have now suffered so much with its brothers languishing in jail is to speak up against the injustice happening in Southern Cameroons and add your voice to the release of our leaders. Until then, we will never look at you and all Francophones who are silent to this atrocities thesame again - EVER

SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

YOU CAN DO BETTER ON YOUR OWN

"THE INEVITABLE NATURE OF CHANGE" by Barrister Akere T. Muna

Change is part of life. To try to go against change is to try to go against the very essence of the meaning of life. So when I read of high government officials and party apparatchiks, moving to Bamenda and Buea, I listen in to hear what the proposals are. Nothing, but a language that divides and the worn-out chant: ‘all is well’.
If there are thousands and thousands of people marching in the streets, if you feel the need to mobilize and explain, then all cannot be well. If people are being shot, buildings burnt and massive arrests taking place and the rule of law starts becoming arbitrary then all cannot be well. Not with my soul, or the soul of any human being.
In this country we are becoming confirmed experts at reinventing the wheel. Unfortunately this happens every time we are faced with a serious problem others have had to deal with before. It appears to me that the easier thing to do should be just to take a look at what others who have struggled through the same tribulation have done. In our case the most obvious thing would be to seek out Canadian experts or at least read up on what they have done. I am more than convinced that our Prime Minister who spent close to nineteen years in Canada knows what all of this is about. He most certainly must have traced the way ahead and unfortunately found some hawks in his path. So then what happened in Canada?
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963-1969) is one of the most influential commissions in Canadian history. It brought about sweeping changes to federal and provincial language policy. The commission was a response to the growing unrest among French Canadians in Quebec, who called for the protection of their language and culture, opportunities to participate fully in political and economic decision-making.
Some of the issues that have always excited public attention in Canada from time to time inter alia have been summarized as follows:
the perception of fairness or unfairness in hiring and promoting speakers of one official language over speakers of the other;
the choice of one language over the other for meetings, documents, and internal memoranda (which are sometimes collectively characterized as the work “environment”);
the promotion of bilingual job candidates over people who only speak only one or the other of the two official languages;
the availability (or lack of availability) of language training for public servants, who cannot advance without the ability to speak both languages;
the costs associated with language-based hiring and promotion practices, including the practice of paying a “bilingual bonus” to public servants capable of speaking both official languages;
the need to provide government services to some Canadians in English, and to others in French.
I am sure all of the above might sound very familiar to many. That is not all. According to Wikipedia’s article “OFFICIAL BILINGUALISM IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA”. By the early 1960s, the issue of Canada’s seemingly perpetual inability to create an equitable distribution of jobs in the country’s rapidly expanding public service was becoming a key grievance underlying Quebec nationalism. In 1961, a Royal Commission studying the structure of the federal bureaucracy in Canada organized a special committee to study the issue of bilingualism within the Public Service. The Commission’s 1962 report included recommendations that the federal government “adopt active measures to develop bilingual capacities among its employees on a selective basis”, and that it more actively recruit qualified French Canadians who would have the potential to advance to the senior ranks of the federal administration (Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Government Organization, vol. I. Ottawa, 1962, p. 267).
The Royal Commission’s multi-volume report, published in 1969, recommended a radical redesign of the Public Service of Canada, in order to establish full equality between the two official languages in the federal administration, and a permanently equitable distribution of jobs, at all levels of seniority, between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians (Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, vol. III, The Work World (Ottawa, 1969).

So what is the situation today in Canada? According to Wikipedia, “Today, the built-in barriers to the hiring and promotion of francophones have been overcome. French-speakers ceased to be underrepresented in the Public Service in 1978, and the percentage of public servants who are francophones has been growing steadily ever since. At the management level, French-speakers ceased to be under-represented in 1995. There is now a growing over-representation of persons with French as their first official language in the Public Service. In 2007, francophones occupied 31.5% of positions in the core public administration, and 26.9% in institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, overall.”
So if we were to borrow from the Canadians the first step will have been the creation National Commission headed by an Anglophone with an Anglophone majority with a mission to make recommendations come into law to rectify the injustices that are known. The archives of this country are loaded with petitions and statistics on the issues now being raised in the streets of Buea and Bamenda and elsewhere. Talking about “états généraux” which funnily enough does not have a proper English translation is nothing concrete.
I have just returned from the attending the 17th Conference of the International Anti Corruption Conference (IACC ) in Panama City. I was elected Chair Council that runs this Conference in 2014 and my mandate runs till 2020. The IACC is the premier global Conference on Anti Corruption. This Panama Meeting brought together 1800 participants, which included the ICIJ (international Consortium of Investigative Journalist) the group of investigative journalists who leaked what is unfortunately now known as the Panama Papers. The theme of this year’s conference was “Time for Justice, Equity, Security, and Trust”. Yes, the Conference was about corruption, but my mind was totally immersed in the news I was from home. As a consequence, I thought of home through the prism of the theme “Time for Justice, Equity, Security, Trust”. In effect Justice and equity is what the cries in the streets of the English-Speaking regions have been about. As matter of fact the same cry can be heard also in many other regions of the country. Security was not provided for those exercising of the simple right to demonstrate peacefully. Even when this was by students chanting “no violence” they met with the furor of Cameroonians in uniform that exercised incredible violence as if they had a score to settle. So what about trust? We have a Constitution that consecrates bilingualism and provides for the respect of common law legal culture without defining the legal institutions that have to ensure their enforcement. As you know, the 1996 provides for autonomous regions with elected officials. This was an idea conceived to counter the argument that was raging after the AAC and the strong movement for a federation. 20 years after nothing has happened. At the very least, the spirit could have been respected by the appointment of governors to regions from where they originate while waiting for elections. The rise of corruption, caused the introduction of article 66 on the declaration of assets. That has not happened and government appointees continue to steal the peoples’ money at the most alarming rate. Instead of dealing with the root of the problems we face, we struggle away with the symptoms. There is no ground for trust. Consequently any promises made are just taken for what they are: promises. Life is about trusting. Those who have lost trust, will always take the chances that they believe will lead to their happiness.

The problems we now face have been exacerbated by serious governance challenges, tribalism, favoritism, and corruption. A system in which everyone is on the rampage at the expense of the state, the poorest and the powerless has slowly been put into place. The victims of this are francophones and Anglophones. The distortion that is being brought by those who paint the issue as an Anglophone Francophone issue is astute. They are trying to mask a failure of governance and the impending threat of system breakdown following the state capture of our resources by a greedy few. Land grabbing is as rampant in Kribi as it is in Limbe. Lack of roads is shameful in the Northwest as in many other regions. Development in the three northern regions and economic hardship has been cited by international reports as being one of the key causes of the ease with which the youth are seduced by Boko Haram. If repression is the only answer to simple demonstrations by the unarmed then we should brace ourselves for sad times in this country. A list should be drawn of all the graduates from ENAM, FMBMS, IRIC, POLYTECHNICS, and other prestigious schools in the country. That list should be used to determine the parentage of all of these graduates. Then we will understand the level of nepotism in our country. These are facts that respect no linguistic or cultural divide. Between 75% to 80% of Cameroonians are under 25. Cameroonians youths now are hungering for a better future. That is an idea. You can oppress all you want but you cannot kill an ideal. That is the inevitable nature of change. There is a wind blowing and it is slowly turning into a tornado, there is nothing we can do to change the direction of this wind, but we can certainly adjust our sails to reach our destination.

In the final analysis we can blame everything on secessionists or any other person for that matter, even on me, since I have now been openly accused of fanning the flames of secession. The facts will not change. In the words of Tony Robbins, “change is inevitable, progress is optional”.

A Open Note to the Two Newly Appointed Banso Professors by Mbiydzenyuy David WANTANGWA

A Open Note to the Two Newly Appointed Banso Professors

(through Shey Woo Scandy)

Shey Woo Scandy, whatever the motive of the appointment, there is nothing now that we should be happy about. You yourself have seen and acknowledged that it is the piece of meat, Honourable Joseph Wirba talked about. What a timely prophecy he out rightly made. If those two professors have courage, they should turn down those appointments. After killing, maiming, torturing, kidnapping our people, they come and give some two obscure positions and you and other adherents of such that you call politics would expect the Nso man to clap or to be happy about that. The blood that has been shed by this regime of Nso people has not been atoned for and I expected that even from the traditional point of view, you like a Shey should understand that better, before invoking our Christianity to reiterate the point. The Blood of innocent is crying out throughout the land, and my appeal is that no one in Nso land nor in Southern Cameroons should dare celebrate any of those odious, hideous appointments. From my authority Shey, let me tell you that such appointments at this time are appalling, indeed an abomination, albeit, loathsome both in the eyes of God, Allah or Nyuymbom, Call him with which version, HE or THEY reject such Machiavellian manipulations. More if you need.... My Advice to those Professors, Wir Fon, Angaa Yeey Ve Abaa, Ven Yuuri mo kijung. These set of appointments are following after the rejection of those who were first preferred to you and trust me, they may be on their way to Kondengui if the skies do not shine on their heads. You were first of all more qualified earlier than now, why were you still being left behind. And at the time your own juniors and brothers and sisters and daughters were being maltreated, tortured, raped, maimed, kidnapped to unknown destinations and the political repression continues in its wildest dimension, what do you imagine are going to be your obligations at least from face value? And now frankly speaking, what do you imagine will be your internal obligations of allegiance to the powers that have put your there? What written and unwritten reports are you supposed to hand to Yaounde? Are you upon assuming your functions very certain that you can perform better to the people than Professor Nalova of Buea whose demise you have just witnessed? And performing better, to whose favour? is there anything in the educational system that will change because of your presence there? Is there anything in the genuine Anglo-Saxon character of things that you think you can successfully change without the blessings of Professor Jacque Fame Ndongo who is your boss? Are you going into these offices as faithful slaves, or as conquering lions? Permit me to take you to another personal level. Two of you are called "Victor" and "Julius". These are conventionally, Christian names, and we want to suppose that you are Christians not just by names but by conviction. You are assuming your positions at a time when lots of people have been wondering if those Christians in government are even worth the name. If they are not just some fellows who grab positions in Church and society to make their weight felt by both and more groupings, so that everybody or at least most can hear your heels when you pass and applaud. Now is the time to put your Christian convictions and your positions in government to a genuine test, because, i assure you, that in the nearest future, those government servants who trample on the people and at the same time come to the Church and assume principal positions, we shall soon spit you out of the Christian communities and no amount of financial contributions that they give to the Church in the hope of corrupting the Church and pocketing the Church will be able to save them. Call it judgement, but when they trample on the people they don't have an appropriate name for it . I must assure you sincerely, that your appointment puts you between the Lion and the Cliff. This is a dilemma that many of your colleagues have found challenging to solve. Do you prefer your Grand Master to your people? Your money to the sufferings and plight of your students? Your positions to the common good? and we can continue to ask. Permit me to come back to this: Remember, that on the day of reckoning, whatever you conceive it to be, your Judge will not be Paul Biya, or Fame Ndongo or call them anything in this government. I have watched and listened to your colleagues fanatically singing the praises of the President as if he were a demi-god having put aside their Professorial status and capabilities and assumed some strange songs of the betimes whimsical and un-statemanlike statements of the head of state. They quickly forget that if they truely qualified or merited the Professorial positions, then they stand a better chance, to correct the president, and as of now, academically speaking, President Paul Biya is not a Professor. So you are supposed to give him sound direction to lead this country and specifically the Educational system from chaotic assimilation into some consistent sanity. Again, as you assume your position how do you hope to be rated by the people, in whose name you have been used for regional balance or whatever they call it, how do you hope to be rated by the government and how do you hope to be rated by God? I invite you both, go into the secret of your rooms and away from any distractions and examine with serious reflection, your conscience as to what await you ahead. It may be a head-on collision with many forces and that you should already be aware of. You may be a stepping stone to achieving both good and evil and God forbid that represent a stepping stone to evil. Whatever, the case you should be careful that this country that is presently sitting on a time bomb should not meet you on the wrong side. A Word to a Wise Is Enough. Good Luck. Pray your God and Act with Fear of the Lord.

BREAKING NEWS! A POWERFUL, VISIONARY, AND EPIC LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE CAMEROON ANGLOPHONE CONSORTIUM AS RECEIVED. CURRENT AND AUTHENTIC. A MUST READ BELOW

I am normally not a fan of Boh Herbert, but I must say I do agree, completely, with his assessment of the Foley Hoag interview and much more.

It was interesting that they cited, as an example of their work, the Polisario and the peoples of Western Sahara. That conflict has been going on for more than 30 years now and resulted in Morocco leaving the OAU only to get back a few years ago. That’s an ongoing conflict that is yet to be resolved. Not sure for how long the firm has been involved with it or what they would consider success in this scenario.

I would have thought they would cite their recent work with the Philippines in the case against China about the disputed islands. The legal aspect of that was a resounding success for the Philippines, the political aspect not so much. As usual there was no enforcing mechanism in the judgment. So the Philippines has ended up in bilateral negotiations with China – something China always wanted and the Philippines never wanted. Not sure what, if any, is Foley Hoag’s role in this crucial part of the problem.

There is nothing inherently wrong with eliciting support from lobbyist. The problem lies with the approach. If I have an issue that needs the US government to intervene from a policy perspective, then a US lobbyist will be a logical approach. Even there, I will seek a firm closer to the current administration. A Clinton era lobbyist or surrogate is unlikely to be very helpful in a Republican, Trump government – note Foley Hoag’s Clinton connections.

Then there is the International aspect of this. How, would a US firm be helpful in lobbying the EU, Russia, Australia or the UN for that matter on our behalf? If we have to go down the expensive route of Lobbyist, should we then have to hire country or institution specific lobbyists? Normally, these guys are hired by corporate interests for specific policy objectives in specific countries. Issues related to Human rights, minority rights, governance in tertiary countries have typically been dealt with through pro bono services and NGOs. Amnesty International, Transparency International the UN etc. are essentially not for profit organizations and their bureaucracies have little patience for profiteering law firms or lobbyists.

It is no wonder, the legal support teams of the ICC are usually pro bono or paid for by NGOs. The fact that we consider paying a left leaning lobbyist in the US or any lobbyist for that matter indicates we have been either unable to, or unwilling to take advantage of the pro bono services out there at our disposal.

We have essentially outsourced the converted job of lobbying our case to a third party. In liberation struggles, the key role of leadership is lobbying the international community for support. The most effective way to do so is through individuals from, the country that are the direct victims of that abuse. Paying lobbyist gives the impression our leaders are either too rich or too busy to engage in such mundane tasks. If they see it fit to outsource the leadership of the struggle, should the people on the ground also outsource their support; Or should they look elsewhere to leadership?

I have read, and watched videos of SCACUF leadership indicating that only $3k has been spent so far by the law firm as an argument that they have been diligent with finances. A couple of things come to mind.

1. Considering that there has been no change in the terms of the contract between Foley Hoag and SCACUF, then $3k, spent over a month working on the case would indicate they really have not been doing anything so far. If, as we know, the billing intervals is 15mins, then the interview alone, with 2 senior Foley Hoag partners already cost SCACUF about $350. Judging by how little information came out of that press conference, I am not
surprised they have not done much work at all.

2. A declaration by Atam Milan, of an item of expense, hardly rises to the realm of accountability; it actually raises more questions than it answers about SCACUF’s accounting practices. The government of Cameroon, unfortunately, has a better track record than that!

3. SCACUF was supposed to ensure $75k be in that account 30 days from the day they met the first $35k requirement. We are well past that threshold and have heard nothing in that regards. It is clear in the contract SCACUF provided, that failing to meet that obligation, the law firm reserved the right to walk off the contract. It is curious that nothing has been said more than 30 days after.

4. Without that $75k, it is likely the law firm is uninclined to commit any more resources to the struggle and any indication that very little had been spent by the law firm only goes to buttress the point that they are scaling back on committing resources.

5. As noted in point 1 above, our esteemed lobbyist, by their contracted fee structure, have hardly committed up to 2hrs of billable time to the SCACUF file. Shouldn’t SCACUF or the people it represents be worried?

As self-appointed, sole representatives of Southern Cameroons, you would expect the third SCACUF conclave to address issues related to where they are in the struggle and the way forward. We’ve heard nothing to that effect; SCACUF spent time and money discussing their internal structural issues and very little, if anything about SC they represent. The one thing SCACUF has on its plate as an external activity is the Lobbyist they hired. I believe they can relax and sip some champagne now having outsourced the struggle to a lobbyist.
Occasional 15 mins conference calls with 2 white guys is enough to pacify its followers.

SCACUF leadership, mostly through surrogates, has been bullying people online peddling the notion that there is no need to be critical of SCACUF and no need to ask what they have done so far. Pointing to SCACUF’s, in my opinion highly flawed, internal structure – and of course Foley Hoag, as evidence of success and traction! There is the further troubling notion that any Anglophone or group of people critical of SCACUF’s actions must be traitors!

It is important to clear the air as to where we were prior to SCACUF and where we are today:-

1. We were able through public and mostly private campaigns able to bring the UN to address the issues in Cameroon and get the UN to send representatives to go visit our leaders in jail. Note the SCACUF only just thought about sending mails to the UN a few weeks ago.

2. Get the Canadian government to sympathize with us to the extent of supporting our Federal position. They actually sent their officials to the provinces to interview local leaders and common people to get an informed sense of the situation on the ground prior to taking their position.

3. Move a few western governments to and parliaments to look into the issues related to the marginalization of our peoples as part of a long diplomatic push.

4. Got Amnesty International and, through the lawyers’ international esprit de corps, had the Bar associations of many countries take strong positions in support of our detainees and lawyers and Anglophones at large.

5. Assemble an international legal team, working pro bono, to defend our leaders and detainees in jail.

6. Rally and unify the entire Anglophone community in opposition to the current state of affairs.

7. Built support for our course from the larger francophone leadership and peoples in Cameroon who easily identify with the mostly governance and human rights aspect of the struggle.

After SCACUF came into existence what have we achieved?

1. Tribalised the Anglophone struggle.

2. Lost the support of the Canadians, who now believe a benevolent despot is better than utter chaos. The only support we now have from them is towards the release of our level headed leaders and detainees.

3. Lost the support of the US and other nations that were considering supporting us in our quest towards legitimately achievable goals.

4. Lost the support on the ground in Cameroon as SCACUFs ambivalent flirtations with uncoordinated violent groups, as a persuasive tool, has alienated the very people it seeks to represent.

5. Alienated the sympathetic francophones in Cameroon who would have been sympathetic to a fight for good governance and the rights of a minority; ticked off when it was hijacked by hate speech directed towards peoples rather than systems.

One thing that’s common to the Anglophones is our sense of critique; our need to accountability and our penchant to question authority. I must say, SCACUF did its best to tap into the anger of the arrests or our leaders, the intimidation of our peoples and the perceived need to unify our voices in opposition to the status quo. Unfortunately, with no vision or plan of action, no accountability, and resorting to violence and blackmail as a means of persuasion; the train, in SCACUF terms, has since moved on with the people leaving them behind.
I could go on and on, but I am better served addressing real issues we have on the ground than any more time with self-serving narcissists who for some reason think they are leaders.

ELECTING OR APPOINTING A SC INTERIM PM - The Stakes at Hand by

ELECTING OR APPOINTING A SC INTERIM PM - The Stakes at Hand.
(long but very very interesting to read please).
Cameroon Journal, Washington D.C – It has been quite agonizing in the past one week listening to distressful and disenchanted voices of lamentation from the ground in Cameroon unveiling a sense of hopelessness and frustration with the way the struggle is going right now. While some have want to throw in the towel, others are yearning for immediate action on the ground, the kind of action that will reinvigorate momentum in the masses.
On social media, fingers are being pointed at SCACUF for not acting in a swift way in the face of such rising frustrations on the ground. Many people appear very resentful at the pace with which SCACUF is moving. The situation, they say is beginning to leave many supporters behind, creating room for people on the ground to start giving up hope. Some are also arguing that SCACUF is either reneging or approaching the idea of an Interim PM or Gov’t rather very slowly. Yet, there are others who are also very concerned that SCACUF may have totally ignored the idea of self-defense.
At the Cameroon Journal, we have argued previously that the idea of an Interim Gov’t remains very crucial, and very urgent. We cannot even over emphasize the importance of it. However, we have also stated that no matter how crucial and urgent the need may be, lots of premeditation and planning has to be judiciously invested in its execution to ensure that the very idea of an Interim Gov’t doesn’t end up killing the entire struggle, especially seeing that many of the leaders out there are beginning to approach this struggle more as politics instead of the revolution that it is.
A third SCACUF conclave, we have learned, is coming up at the end of this month. The main agenda on the table we are told shall be the subject of the Interim gov’t. This is a very emotional and sensitive matter, and there are wolves both from within us and without that are hovering around waiting to seize upon the least weakness in the conduct of the election process to destabilize the struggle.
We must again and again be reminded that in the struggle, there are many so-called leaders out there who are just interested in playing politics given the least opportunity. But they come across as concerned comrades, putting on sack cloth like all of us, pretending to share the same sentiments we all have, but in the innermost part of their beings, all they fight for is power and position. These are the people, the elements, the destabilizing forces that SCACUF must look out for as they meet in the next conclave to decide on the way forward in forming an Interim gov’t.
It is in the above reasons that we once more want to make the appeal loud and clear that the idea of an election for the Interim gov’t be put aside, at least for the moment. Now, do not be mistaking. We’re not asking that the idea of an Interim Gov’t be shelled, suspended or put aside. Rather, our concern is with the ELECTION component of it. We think there should be an appointment, not an election. Knowing the dangers inherent in an election whose rules are not known, and which cannot be rushed into, we do not see the reason why our senior statesmen, some of who make up the Advisory Council of SCACUF cannot be trusted for the purpose of preserving our unity by picking a leader or a president or PM who can lead a gov’t in the interim.
This is very important considering the tense atmosphere and the backroom politicking that is ongoing. Any form of election at this moment, we are afraid, may bring unnecessary scrambling in the house. And by the way, who is going to vote, how are they going to vote, where are they going to vote and under what rules are they going to vote? Did you happen to watch how shaky it was to agree on the procedure to vote for SCACUF South Africa leaders? If electing leaders for SA alone was that intriguing, what is going to happen when it comes to a national election?
Some have suggested that such an Interim PM/President should not emerge from the diaspora. That he should be somebody on the ground. Yet, we can hardly find any precedence where a leader of an opposing or revolutionary gov’t was ever based in the home front. Ours is not an opposition party, we are a nationalist movement. It will be a good idea having such an Interim leader based on the ground, that is, if the Consortium and the SCNC and others were not banned. But now that they have all been banned and all their leaders are either underground or on the run, voting for or choosing an Interim leader based at home will be panacea to disaster.
Going back to the PM or Interim Gov’t thing, we strongly support an appointment against an election – at least for now, because many organizations involved in this struggle are acting more like political parties. Their leaders grandstand, blackmail and sabotage one another. Some who have failed to use the regular channels to push their selfish agendas, have gone as far as using pen names to publish sabotage material against other groups and individuals. We are really concerned of a situation where if they do not have their way in this Interim gov’t thing, they will do everything to sabotage the struggle so that they can sit back and throw the blame at others.
SCACUF presently has an Advisory/Leadership Council made up of some of the most trusted veteran statesmen in this struggle. We think they can be trusted to step forward and appoint such a gov’t without relying on some election. The election thing is exactly where the danger lies. An election now may mar this struggle forever. And the idea that we must have some 130 delegates representing all the counties of the Southern Cameroons is equally uncalled for, at least for now.
Let’s remember we are not about a real or normal functioning cabinet and a normal functioning gov’t here. We are merely about looking for an arrangement that should lead and represent us in whatever direction we want to go. The Advisory Council could appoint the Interim PM, and then get all the member groups of SCACUF to nominate from their groups those they feel can serve in the cabinet of the PM. While the new gov’t gets to work after the exercise, the Council staying behind, should work on a draft constitution and rules for electing a future interim gov’t as the mandate of this one expires.
Having said that, Southern Cameroonians who feel like SCACUF isn’t being sensitive and addressing certain issues should be aware that LRC is very busy trying by all means to get information pertaining to what plan of action SCACUF is planning. LRC is actually penetrating our forums and groups per chance, to find out what is being planned. For these reasons, we should realize that SCACUF isn’t going to get out there announcing what it plans on executing. Let us all understand that even if SCACUF were to wage war tomorrow, it won’t go out announcing it because they do not want LRC to preempt them or thwart the plan. We hope this is the reason why SCACUF isn’t coming out to address some of the concerns that are being raised.
We have spoken with SCACUF leadership, and we want everybody to rest assured that SCACUF has plans, unfortunately, these are no normal times and they cannot go out broadcasting what such plans are. But everyone, especially in the home front can rest assured that there is an element of surprise on the way. Let’s avoid being carried away by emotions, there are plans and LRC will be surprised what is coming at them.

The 10 most important points to remember for every Ambazonian by Christopher Messner

DEAR FELLOW AMBAZONIANS, 

Here, the 10 most important points to remember for every Ambazonian: 

1. Only united among our own rows we can defeat our common enemy, which is our annexor, occupant and neo-colonialist exploiter, the puppet regime of illegitimate dictator Paul Biya backed up by puppet-holder France and its XAF = CFA currency system captured inside BEAC and the French National Bank in Paris.
2. With an enemy, which exploited, marginalized and mal-treated us for decades, there is no begging, petitioning, negotiating or federalizing. Only a clear cut with these puppets and crooks in power in Yaounde, Paris & Geneva can solve problems. Only full independence from our rapist La “Republique” du Cameroun can save our health. We say the final good-bye to LRC and Françafrique! There is no way back! Foreward ever backward never!
3. To claim a) the unconditional release of all political prisoners, b) the restoration of our statehood, and c) the withdrawal of all occupants from our Ambazonian territory is non-negotiable. Every Ambazonian must claim full independence now and all collaborators with LRC must face serious consequences. CPDM is a terrorist organization and all governmental offices, facilities or money sources of our occupant on our territory will e made inaccessable for him. And we don’t only claim, we take back.
4. Independence means independence. All Ambazonians are independent from all other powers in the world, especially neo-colonial powers. We are not dependent on any mercy of any country or organization to “give” us independence. We are not dependent on any UN document proving us anything. We are an independent people of Ambazonians and act independently and take everything we need for exercising our already God-given independence. We name ourselves and our state independently as we want, by referendum of our people or by decree. Our people are not Cameroonians. We are Ambazonians. Our own leaders and peoples decide what is good for us, not foreign ones.
5. The world media still does not know or does not want to know the truth about Ambazonia (former “Southern Cameroons”). We stopped calling us “Cameroonians” because the world does not understand the difference between southern Cameroonians and Cameroonians. We are not southern or western or whatever Cameroonians or just “Anglophones in their territory” as they say. All Ambazonians will tell the truth about Ambazonian = SC's history and identity to any journalist, politician and organization in the world methodically, periodically, persistently, until the present narrative that the “Anglophones in the west of Cameroon” would be a “problem” has disappeared. We are not a problem, we are the solution!
6. The core of the problem with Cameroon is that its dictatorial government has sold itself to foreign neo-colonizers who steal the profits from the resources of Ambazonia into foreign accounts and do not reinvest these profits into Ambazonia. The whole thing is not a Francophone/Anglophone problem. It is a problem of robbing and stealing done by the French etc. and their puppet regimes in Africa. And all Ambazonians will tell this truth to the world consistently now until the world gets it. Additionally there will be massive demonstrations in Paris and Brussels in the middle of July 2017 which will ignite the “Second French Revolution” which means the end of France”s neocolonialism in Africa. On top of that there will be a Million Men&Women March on the government building in Buea on October 1st 2017, where we will hoist the Ambazonian flag. Our unarmed, peaceful marchers will be safeguarded by our hidden Ambazonian guerilla and all soldiers of the enemy will know that if they fire one single shot on innocent, marching people, full international media coverage will prove to the world that Biya is the terrorist not us.
7. Self-defense from violent occupation and human rights violations is fully legal according to international law. But the defeat and chase out of occupants can only be started, after SCACUF has achieved to successfully teach the international media that the Ambazonian freedom fighters are not what Yaounde's CRTV says but the Biya regime and its occupying troops are violators of international law and terrorists. Ambazonia will not tell the occupant when its defense and guerilla forces will chase him out. They are ready. The occupant better leaves now or it will become a very bloody experience for him.
8. Sufficient finance, equipment and training of the own army, which will hold all own territory against all potential enemies forever, comes from supportive powers which oppose Camerounese-French mismanagement and which know very well that Ambazonia needs to give only a small percentage of its resources to finance sufficient self-defense. Parallel, the new, democratically elected government of Ambazonia will swear an oath to the new Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ambazonia (=SC), which has strictest anti-corruption-laws of the world and sets much higher standards of law than any French type constitution.
9. Ambazonian citizens started to register as citizen of Ambazonia online and will contribute each at least 10% of their wealth to the further liberation and modernization of Ambazonia. Better 90% left than 100% dead under the rule of the illegal French occupant. Those who refuse to give taxes to Ambazonia will feel disadvantages or dispossessions later. Big donors on the other hand will be have reduced taxes. 
10. After Ambazonia has fully liberated itself and regained full control over all its territory and resources, it will also start to help the Camerounese as well to get rid of the incompetent, senile Biya regime and Françafrique’s system of corruption, exploitation and neocolonialism. After both sovereign countries Ambazonia and Cameroun have got a completely new constitution and a totally different, democratic government, both may form a Confederation, if both peoples would agree in two separate referenda. 

LONG LIVE AMBAZONIA!