A Journey To Yaounde(1): Cameroon O' Bosso Na Mbussa:

Louis Egbe Mbua

On a second visit to Cameroon this year, it won’t have been appropriate, I thought, to leave without making a sortie to Yaoundé, the Capital City of Cameroon. One had read; and heard of the accident-prone highway that links Douala, the commercial hub in the Gulf of Guinea, to the city embedded in the middle of Cameroon. Where does one board a coach to Yaoundé, I inquired. In Akwa, I was informed by old hands of the Douala gentry. There is a company located in Akwa; it is very efficient and provides express service; but you have to arrive early to catch the express service, they opined. What is the name of the Company? Guarantee was the name. How apt: I will be guaranteed a good and safe journey, I said to myself. So, early on the 25th of July 2009, I dressed up after the London business suit fashion, and found myself in the coach station in Akwa.

A nearby kiosk was playing a Cameroonian number in this manner: Pompez, les pompiers; la maison c’est brule . Who wrote and played this song? I asked the man next to me in the seat at the hall way in the station. Hugo Nyame: C’est Padonne Madame, he replied in a knowing and sure disposition. My niece had arrived earlier, arranged for the tickets, secured the seats; and then we sat down in the station to wait for the bus to begin this strange journey. The driver of the Coach signalled that he has to leave in time; at 8:30 am. We climbed into the high-staged design coach; and took our seats. The man who sat next to me asked: Tu es Anglophone?
Oui, je suis Anglophone, I replied. I didn’t have to respond with a similar investigation since only a Francophone Cameroonian would pose such a question in French. Mais, est-que tu viens de Buea ou bien de Bamenda? J' habite ici a Douala, was the answer coming from me.

Non, Tu ne me responds bien. C’est bien que nous sommes tous a Douala. Mais ca ne signifie que nous sommes de Douala. Moi-meme j’habite a Douala mais je ne viens de Littoral. Que j’habite a Douala ne signifie pas que mon village c’est ici a Douala. Mon village, s’Il vous plait, c'est situe a Bandjoun.

This was not the kind of discussion one wished in the beginning of a long journey. However, I decided to answer his philosophical point as he seemed an insightful man; and a man of intelligence. If that is what you mean, then I am travelling from Buea, I responded. Oh! You are an Anglophone Whiteman then, the man exclaimed. Well, you can see that I am not a White person, I said. The man looked bemused on this reply.

I agree with you that your village is within Bandjoun, but this is the 21st century, I continued. It is important that you identify yourself with where you grew up; and where you earn your living as well as your village of origin in Cameroon. The point here is that you have settled in Douala where, you are supposedly, are earning a nice living; well, judging from your wonderful pair of shoes and clothes. The point is not whether I am an Anglophone or you a Francophone but that we are of the same country; and that we all should enjoy the benefits of this land. Consequently, it is of utmost importance that you consider your village as well as where you are presently residing in Cameroon. This is because you have the advantage of a two-pronged opportunity which may make you rich; and as a consequence, the entire Cameroon.

What do you mean by “a two-pronged opportunity”? The man asked. Well, you have the opportunity of having to live in two lands. There is the idea of The Two Lands since ancient times.

How? Asked Le Camerounais. In ancient Africa, I replied, there was a King called Menes, the ruler of Egypt about 4500 years ago, who brought about this idea of unity into the world. We do not know how he came about this idea. However, we know for certain that he united the two lands of Egypt: Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. These lands were of completely different geography, ethnic and possibly linguistic make up. After this act of genius, people from both parts of the united lands had a two-pronged opportunity since they could carve a career in any of the two regions; at the same time could return to their area of origin where they could again advance themselves because they were known there. Due to the uniting of the two lands, the Egyptians were able to harness their people into a critical mass of talent. The result is still there, in the two lands, for the entire world to see today. Remember that connections are as important as an institution. It seems the early Cameroon leaders had this idea or might have read of them from ancient books or might have some kind of links with ancient Egypt – it is Africa after all. The important point is that, I continued, the Egyptian priests and rulers were wiser than us.

Now, my brother, you are trying to compare 2500 BC to the 21st century, he composed. Your comparison does not add up; and invalid. The Egyptians lived in their time. We are living in the 21st century where there are computers and Aeroplanes. So, this ancient “two-pronged” approach can neither fit in this era nor is it feasible. Besides, why do you believe (if we may consider your opinion a belief in the first place) the Egyptians wiser than us? Surely, they never created the computer nor did they go to space, did they? What you are saying is illogical unless you provide a further explanation to buttress your reasoning. As far as I can see you will have great difficulties in crafting an acceptably justified defence in this instance. The Cameroon situation is different because we are one and indivisible from the beginning. As a result, the unification that happened in 1961 cannot be likened to that of the ancient Egyptians despite their considerable success in art, technology, agriculture, architecture, religion and culture. If we examine the matter very closely, we may realise that we might have achieved a similar feat in Cameroon. The Edea Dam, SONARA in Limbe [Victoria]; Douala City and where we are going; Yaoundé. The point of the matter is that we do what we can at this time; and then leave the rest to the future generation. It is true that unity is good but we may not be able to achieve everything dans cinquante ans de L’independance. Cela c’est impossible! Cameroun O’ Bosso*!

You have spoken well mon frère, I emphasised. It is true that Cameroon, and in fact Africa, has made considerable stride in civilisation. However, I won’t agree with you that the stated advancement is of the same stature of achievement as the ancient United Lands of the North and South. The Egyptians appeared to be more enlightened than we are in the 21st century. I agree that they never invented any computers or went into space but they seemed to have understood the psychology of man. I say this because they, apparently, were fair and just to the very best of their abilities in antiquity. For, instance, they knew about women’s rights and the rights of the minority in their Kingdom. The same cannot be given to the present Cameroon. In the present climate, it seems those who purport to be leaders lack this fundamental understanding. For instance, it is not important for you to judge me as an Anglophone or for me to judge you as a Francophone, but that you are a human being who can think and act in a positive way; to affect all Cameroonians and indeed the world. Now, if we have rulers who believe that they must first satisfy their villages before they think of the entire Cameroon and the world, then we cannot actually meet up with Egyptian standards. The Egyptians never did such a thing. While I will not venture to vociferate that the Egyptians were perfect, one is hard pressed to find a leader, in Cameroon, who is wise as was as Hephaestus, the Egyptian queen who built the classic temple at Thebes. Our leaders have failed to emulate these great leaders: they have been involved in discrimination and grandiloquence. Even if the Re-unification was a good idea, they failed to institute social justice in the entire territory as the Egyptians did. As a result, we have a breakdown of morality; and the marginalisation of Anglophones, who form part of the two lands, in a clearly illegal act which must be redressed before we may compare and contrast with the ancients. What we have, therefore, is Cameroon O’ Bosso na Mbussa*; and not actually Cameroun O’Bosso!

The man was shocked at this reply. A woman at his side – presumably his wife – seemed to crave attention; and the discussion was further interrupted when the bus began to move on. Noticing this state of fluxing affairs, I thought it wise not to usher any further commentaries on this matter. I had borrowed a book from my uncle. I opened the page where I had ended my musing of Mbella Sonne Dipoko’s Because of Women and began to read: Ngosso had paddled his canoe......or something of that sort.

*O' Bosso: Getting ahead

* O' Mbussa: Getting behind

Living In the 21st Century (1): A Fashion Statement

Fashion and Style at their Heights

By Louis Egbe Mbua


Since the arrival of the new millennium; there appears to be a psychological shift in every aspect of life that renders men and women to co-exist on the planet. From science to religion, there have been dramatic change of paradigm. In peace and in war, we now live and think differently thannever before. Online education is now a normal occurrence rather than a strange method of pedagogy. Only in the 21st Century and this new millennium can we actually hold up hardened terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, with his urbane looking beard, as a fashion icon. But is he? This article examines the folly and wisdom that go with fashion and style in the first decade of the 21st century and the third millennium:

It is better to be stylish than to be fashionable
Because fashion fades but style stays forever:
A dress worn for show is worse than worn to fit
‘Cause better to fit than to show unstuck and unfit.

A man must not wear a shirt of four colours;
For multiple colours are suited but of women:
The woman with a colourful dress will win
But she who wears white informally has failed.

Black is the new white but brown is for soldiers
And a man looks good in brown but a woman who
Wears combats as a fashion statement is not stylish;
And a man who wears white trousers has no style.

A man of no great height must stay clear of heels
Because it shows fashion insecurity with his looks,
But a woman may wear high heels as long as she is
Not six foot five since she will never find a man in them.

There is no such thing as a small woman since all
Have the same hypnotic powers in similar measure.
Her hand bag must match her dress and hair style
For it is faux pas to have a mismatch in this instance.

No man must nurture long hair unless he is a priest
Or he is into a religious order and in show business
Since men may mistake him for a woman and
Women may classify him as effeminate and weak.

Women & men with long hair should visit the Salon
Each week lest: it looses its natural brilliance.
Short hair style is stylish to both men & women
But it’s unstylish for a woman to be skinned head.

Size zero people must not touch tight trousers
Since this displays angled structures of bones
Rather than curved structures defined by nature
The same applies to size 30s with excess curves.

A good dancer is a delight and a bonus to him:
But better that a bad dancer should not dance at all:
Since this may spoil a social occasion entirely.
Thus if a socialite, you must learn how to dance.

In plastic surgery, only engage to correct a fault
But he who does it for beautification is a fool
‘Cause what you have, was written before time
And plastic surgery can never overcome time.

Beauty is not exuded by the external alone
But what you think inside combines with
The external to make the beauty complete:
Plastic surgery can spoil the whole beauty.

There is a way to walk and move in line
With what you wear as to what you desire.
In fashion dressing, walk with the style of a cat
And the galloping confidence of a horse

The one is meant to compliment the other;
Thus only a fool will try a cat walk at home
Or in the office, for this will be out of place
Since you will not be marked for promotion

A vain woman who strips naked for pictures
Is unwise because she must explain this vanity
To her parents, grandchildren and husband
On why such an extravagant display of vanity

A vain man who strips naked for photographs
Is yet a bigger fool since a man is not exactly
A work of art as compared to the fairer one,
And that fashion without clothes doesn’t exist.

While riches can buy one fashion the same can’t
Be said of style since style exists but in nature.
So while style is real, eternal and supernatural
Fashion is founded on illusion and artificiality.

African Commission Landmark Ruling On Cameroon -- A Road Map To Southern Cameroons Freedom

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.

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:

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.

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