Posts
Louis Egbe Mbua
As day follows night , so too does humility follows arrogance in reversibilty. For years, the Southern Cameroons people have invited the Republic of Cameroon for amicable talks as concerns the violation of thier rights. However, this has been followed by denials and other provocative insults such as: "if you do not like to be in Cameroon, go somewhere else". There is an adage that one should be careful as to what one asks; for it might happen in reality. Referring to an innocent man as: "an enemy of the house" is not only disingenous; but that the aggrieved man may decide to leave that house and create his own home.
There are those who always believe, erroneously, that the oppressed will remain in their abject condition for ever. However, justice is always on the corner, tailing the oppressor who violates the rights of humans. This has been the case between the Southern Cameroons peoples, also known as Anglophones, and the Republic of Cameroun people, otherwise known as Francophones in Cameroon since 1961. Many a Cameroonian have always believed that the Southern Cameroons independence is an impossible dream; and that it will remain a dream forever. This is a dreadful mistake; for poetic justice usually comes most unexpectedly and very quickly. The writer is of the opinion that the ACHPR ruling in the case between the Southern Cameroons and The Republic of Cameroon has delivered the killer hammer Blow to the Cameroon Union and set Southern Cameroons firmly onto the path of independence. When a man keeps crying for justice and insisting on fairness, they are usually rewarded. Again, it is better to engage your brother and reach an agreement on an injustice than for him to take you to court where you cannot escape retributive justice and punishment for your wrong doings. This writing will attempt to interprete the Commission's ruling in light of Southern Cameroons independence and freedom.
Following the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights ruling being made public by that organisation; as well as the government of The Republic of Cameroon in a Communique dated 1st October 2009, it is clear that the Republic of Cameroon has violated the Human Rights of Southern Cameroonians on 10 counts: in relation to the African Charter; and that the Republic of Cameroon, also known as La Republique du Cameroun, is guilty of violating international Law. When the UN sponsored plebiscite of February 1961 was initiated in Southern Cameroons, there were no provisions for such gross and grosteque violations of human rights in the enactment of the creation of the Cameroon Federation between the two former UN Trust Territories. As a consequence, these violations justify that the United Nations steps in and conduct a second plebiscite in that territory for the Southern Cameroons people to decide as to whether they wish to continue in the UN-created Union with La Republique as a Federated State or whether they desire outright independence as a separate country.
Similarly, this is the moment for Southern Cameroons to seize to free their people from 50 years of discrimination and violation of their rights by The Republic of Cameroon. In a bizarrely paradoxical twist, it provides, albeit inadvertently, an opportunity for the citizens of The Republic of Cameroon to throw out 50 years of totalitarian oligarchy, peacefully rewrite the constitution so as to free the people from the seemingly impossible grip of sychophancy, dictatorship, oppression, brutality and corrupt leadership; and set them on a path to progress. We have to now examine, in details, the winning points that will lead to Southern Cameroons freedom and how it can be done; and the freedom of all Cameroonians in due course as a consequence.
So, examining what the Commission found in its ruling in interpretation:
The Commission found that the Republic of Cameroon violated article 1 of the African Charter which enshrines Human rights to all African peoples.
The Commission found that La Republique du Cameroun violated article 2 of the African Charter which stipulated the entitlement to enjoyment of the right of birth; that Cameroon discriminated against Southern Cameroonians contrary to article 20 of the African charter. The Commission drew attention to discrimination of Southern Cameroonian businesses, especially in light of the Treaty for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa, OHADA (Organisation pour l’Hamonisation Des Droits d’Affaires en Afrique.) They reached this decision on grounds that Southern Cameroonians businessmen in Cameroon must submit their article of incorporation for their businesses in French; and that failure to do so means that they cannot open a business bank account; and thus cannot obtain loans or are refused access to capital. The writer finds this strange since Cameroon claims to be a bilingual nation. Furthermore, it explains why most thriving and profitable Southern Cameroonian businesses had to be relocated to Francophone Cameroon after 1972; especially to Douala ; went bankrupt; and why business did not thrive in Southern Cameroons.
It would seem that this has been a practice that has been going on since 1972 when the Federation was illegally destroyed; and that this was a long term premeditated plan to annihilate Southern Cameroonians so as to reduce them to abject poverty; and to weaken their fight for freedom. The land mark ruling means that the OHADA ratification is null and void as regards Southern Cameroons territory; and since this violates the 1961 plebiscite, it follows that The Republic of Cameroon has no right of jurisdiction to dictate business law to Southern Cameroonians in their territory; meaning that the Southern Cameroons state and law on businesses still stand to this day.
The Commission also found The Republic of Cameroon in violation of Article 4 of the African Charter which enshrined the right to life and the inviolability of human persons.
The Commission also found The Republic of Cameroon in violation of Article 4 of the African Charter which enshrined the right to life and the inviolability of human persons.
Cameroon also violated article 5 of the African Charter because the government subjected Southern Cameroonians to torture, amputations and denial of medical treatment of arrested activists. If this is true, then The Republic of Cameroon also breached the plebiscite conditions and as a result the Union no longer counts. In this case, the United Nations must take up its responsibility to re-examine the 1961 plebiscite.
The Republic of Cameroon further violated article 6 of the African Charter of Human Rights because her forces arrest Southern Cameroonians who are detained for days and months without trial. As usual, La Republique du Cameroun tried to justify this violation by accusing the detainees, falsely, of being terrorists. This was thrown out and the Commission again indicted the government of gross violation of the Rights of Southern Cameroonians.
The Republic of Cameroon was also found guilty of violation of Article 7 (1) (b) (c) and (d) which enshrined the right to fair trial. They reached this decision because Southern Cameroonians were arrested and transferred to Francophone territory (Bafoussam and Yaounde) to be tried by a Military tribunal although those arrested and accused were civilians; and that they were tried in French, a language they do not understand and without interpreters. This is shameful for a purportedly bilingual country and a naked act of Apartheid. It must be stated that this has been going on for more than 40 years. During a confrontation with Cameroon oppresive forces from Francophone Cameroon who were perpetrating naked aggression on civilians, in Bakossiland, in 1966, Southern Cameroons, Southern Cameroonians accused of involvement were transferred to Yaoundé in Francophone territory where they were either executed or incacerated for long periods after a kangaroo trial in Military tribunals. This again violates the 1961 UN-supervised plebiscite, and therefore, Southern Cameroonians must demand a fresh plebiscite from the international community to decide their future. No people must be surrendered to be violated in such a blatant disregard to human life and fairness in the name of a Union. Unions must be just and fair to all citizens; and especially to protect the minority partner.
The Commission also arrived at the decision that the Cameroon government violated article 11 of the African Charter that outlines the right to free assembly in accordance with National laws and security. The Commission found the Cameroon government guilty of forced suppression of demonstrators, and that there is sufficient evidence that Southern Cameroonians have been shot and killed by forces during demonstrations while others arrested died in prison. Is this what Southern Cameroonians voted for in 1961? If this is not what they asked, then the plebiscite is now devoid of its original objectives and must be reviewed by the United Nations.
The findings of the Commission as regards article 19 that centered on the annexation of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun in violation of the African charter, is more intriguing; and delivers an unprecedented victory to Southern Cameroons.
The Commission stated, very clearly, that they have no jurisdiction; and therefore incompetent to determine what annexation is in this instance in connection with the UN 1961 plebiscite in the Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons; and what happened in 1961 – 1972 since this predates the entry into force of the charter. This is a land mark ruling because it implies that the United Nations has been dragged into the dispute. If the UN organised a plebiscite in terms of equal status of the two states, how come there is no longer any Southern Cameroons government? Where is the equality here? What were the instruments that the UN, as a supervisor of the British administered territory, put in place to protect the constitutional and human rights of Southern Cameroons? Did the United Nations fail in her responsibility in the Southern Cameroons case? The answer to the latter question is a resounding Yes ; because had this happened, these gross violations could never have occurred in the first place; and that Francophone administrators and soldiers would have respected the jurisdiction of Southern Cameroons as not to enter the territory to maim, kill and oppress the people from September 1961 and onwards to now.
The Commission didn’t end there but went further to announce that if Southern Cameroons can establish that annexation occurred; and that this right was violated before 18 December 1989 and continues thereafter, then the Commission will be competent to examine the annexation issue. This is a blank cheque to Southern Cameroons. There is enough evidence to prove violation:
The Republic of Cameroon was also found guilty of violation of Article 7 (1) (b) (c) and (d) which enshrined the right to fair trial. They reached this decision because Southern Cameroonians were arrested and transferred to Francophone territory (Bafoussam and Yaounde) to be tried by a Military tribunal although those arrested and accused were civilians; and that they were tried in French, a language they do not understand and without interpreters. This is shameful for a purportedly bilingual country and a naked act of Apartheid. It must be stated that this has been going on for more than 40 years. During a confrontation with Cameroon oppresive forces from Francophone Cameroon who were perpetrating naked aggression on civilians, in Bakossiland, in 1966, Southern Cameroons, Southern Cameroonians accused of involvement were transferred to Yaoundé in Francophone territory where they were either executed or incacerated for long periods after a kangaroo trial in Military tribunals. This again violates the 1961 UN-supervised plebiscite, and therefore, Southern Cameroonians must demand a fresh plebiscite from the international community to decide their future. No people must be surrendered to be violated in such a blatant disregard to human life and fairness in the name of a Union. Unions must be just and fair to all citizens; and especially to protect the minority partner.
The Commission also arrived at the decision that the Cameroon government violated article 11 of the African Charter that outlines the right to free assembly in accordance with National laws and security. The Commission found the Cameroon government guilty of forced suppression of demonstrators, and that there is sufficient evidence that Southern Cameroonians have been shot and killed by forces during demonstrations while others arrested died in prison. Is this what Southern Cameroonians voted for in 1961? If this is not what they asked, then the plebiscite is now devoid of its original objectives and must be reviewed by the United Nations.
The findings of the Commission as regards article 19 that centered on the annexation of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun in violation of the African charter, is more intriguing; and delivers an unprecedented victory to Southern Cameroons.
The Commission stated, very clearly, that they have no jurisdiction; and therefore incompetent to determine what annexation is in this instance in connection with the UN 1961 plebiscite in the Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons; and what happened in 1961 – 1972 since this predates the entry into force of the charter. This is a land mark ruling because it implies that the United Nations has been dragged into the dispute. If the UN organised a plebiscite in terms of equal status of the two states, how come there is no longer any Southern Cameroons government? Where is the equality here? What were the instruments that the UN, as a supervisor of the British administered territory, put in place to protect the constitutional and human rights of Southern Cameroons? Did the United Nations fail in her responsibility in the Southern Cameroons case? The answer to the latter question is a resounding Yes ; because had this happened, these gross violations could never have occurred in the first place; and that Francophone administrators and soldiers would have respected the jurisdiction of Southern Cameroons as not to enter the territory to maim, kill and oppress the people from September 1961 and onwards to now.
The Commission didn’t end there but went further to announce that if Southern Cameroons can establish that annexation occurred; and that this right was violated before 18 December 1989 and continues thereafter, then the Commission will be competent to examine the annexation issue. This is a blank cheque to Southern Cameroons. There is enough evidence to prove violation:
A. The two governors of the SW and NW regions of what constitutes Southern Cameroons are Francophones.
B. In 2005, soldiers from Francophone Cameroon entered Buea and shot and killed students in a demonstration at University of Buea who were protesting of poor conditions and other matters at the University. They also raped and looted in Buea as well as terrorise the population of Buea. This is forceful annexation as they violated the boundaries of Southern Cameroons which is at River Mungo.
C. A similar incident happened in Buea in 2006.
B. In 2005, soldiers from Francophone Cameroon entered Buea and shot and killed students in a demonstration at University of Buea who were protesting of poor conditions and other matters at the University. They also raped and looted in Buea as well as terrorise the population of Buea. This is forceful annexation as they violated the boundaries of Southern Cameroons which is at River Mungo.
C. A similar incident happened in Buea in 2006.
D. In Bamenda in 2007
E. And the recent Cameroon riots in Febraury 2008.
In another case, Southern Cameroons, now has the right to refer the matter to the Security Council of the UN who is now celarly competent to re-examine the UN 1961 plebiscite and arrange a new one in line with the Commission’s findings.
In a separate development regarding article 19, the Commission found Cameroon in violation of this article in relation to transferring the Port of Victoria (Limbe) to Douala. According to the Commission, this amounts to the case that The Republic of Cameroon has no control of Victoria (Limbe) and therefore in violation of this article.
Article 20 is very interesting. This dwells on secession and the right to self-determination as a people. Firstly, the Commission rejects secession on grounds that the Complaint violates that right of the African Charter. In effect, the Commission cannot violate its own charter – a perfectly valid point. But it appears Southern Cameroons never asked for secession as there is no treaty of Union between the two former territory. On the other hand, it appears the Commission is incompetent to decide on this matter.
Again, however, the Commission hands out Southern Cameroons with a blank cheque. They ruled that Southern Cameroonians are a separate and distinct people; and that collective peoples’ rights are as important as individual rights, and that Southern Cameroonians qualify as a people geographically, culturally and with a common cause. The implications; in terms of Southern Cameroons independence are huge. Southern Cameroons must now report to the UN who began this ordeal in the first place so that the 1961 plebiscite is revisited.
The Commission recommends dialogue between the leaders of the two states, especially the SCNC and SCAPO who brought the Southern Cameroons case against The Cameroon Republic , under the auspices of the African Commission rather than separation. In this case, therefore, Southern Cameroons leaders must insist on a new plebiscite that includes outright independence which was clandestinely left out in the 1961 fiasco; and that the United Nations must be involved in settling this matter once and for all.
Finally, the Commission found the Cameroon government in violation of Article 26 that enshrines the independence of the Judiciary. They ruled that the Cameroon Judiciary is not independent in line with article 26 of the Africa Charter because the President of Cameroon, who is the head of the Executive arm, is also head of the Judiciary. This is against democratic principles that require that the Executive arm must be separated from the Judiciary arm. In that case, therefore, Cameroon Judiciary cannot be fair.
This, also, is a blank cheque to both Southern Cameroons and Cameroon peoples in general. This is the time to act and eliminate once and for all the propensity for unfair trials and selective crimes where by the President cannot be held into account. In addition, Southern Cameroons has the right to take their case to the ICJ since the judiciary in Cameroon is now incompetent to rule on these violations. The UN must be involved in resolving this matter once and for all.
The Commission also ruled on other articles but most of the ruling was based on lack of submission of evidence by Southern Cameroons; and therefore on technicalities rather than evidence put against by The Republic of Cameroon to challenge them.
Details of the Commission’s Ruling on Communication 266/2003 can be found in:
http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/news_en.html
No comments:
Post a Comment