Posts
Bamenda, Cameroon
Louis Egbe Mbua
Not since the spectacular no-show of one of my friend’s first date with a London sophisticate has one witnessed another incident of such magnanimous ignominy. The much-hyped visit to Bamenda by President Paul Biya of The Republic of Cameroon was turned into the main event of the year, transformed into a speculative event of the month and finally to a spectacular non-event of the day. That it has descended into a colourless fiasco is an understatement. The unexpected confusion began when the government of Cameroon decided to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Cameroon’s independence this year, 2010. While there is nothing wrong in celebrating the year of a nations’ independence, it becomes a conundrum that needs to be addressed with tact and wisdom if that particular nation is comprised of two independent nation states complete with two different independence dates. Let the reader understand: for contemporary Cameroon is an amalgamation of two UN Trust Territories – The French Cameroun, now called the Republic of Cameroon; and which was under French Trusteeship and the Southern Cameroons under the UK Trusteeship, now under colonisation by The Republic of Cameroon. The latter attained an UN-sponsored independence on 1 October 1961 while the former – The Republic of Cameroon -- attained her independence under the same UN body on 1 January 1960. The two states merged to form The Federal Republic of Cameroon on 1 October 1961 with separate governments and internationally recognised boundaries.
So, when officials of The Republic of Cameroon with Capital in Yaoundé, made a unilateral decision to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the entire Cameroon this year, and without consultations with Southern Cameroons officials based in Buea, Bamenda and in the Diaspora, the stage was set for the unfolding political drama that has culminated into a dragging official disaster. To citizens of The Republic of Cameroon, there is nothing wrong with this disreputable arrangement, while Southern Cameroons citizens considered such a decision not only arrogant and historically dishonest, but a profound case of provocation; and an attempt by The Republic of Cameroon to cement her annexation ruse of their territory in violation of both national and international laws of states. Southern Cameroonian Nationalists and other concerned citizens of that state rejected outright, such a ubiquitous move, and what they believe to be that of a desperate Cameroon trying to hang on to illegality with their finger tips.
The Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), the liberation movement seeking to restore the independence of Southern Cameroons from the “vice-grip” of The Republic of Cameroons annexation, and The Southern Cameroons People’s Organisation (SCAPO) who has vowed to drive out La Repubique du Cameroun from the Southern Cameroons soil immediately reported the matter to the international community and the United Nations. As a result, President Paul Biya became extremely frightened of the implications and the consequences that may follow the prestige of Cameroon in relation to the international community. In a last gasp for political breath, Paul Biya then modified the “50th anniversary of Cameroon’s Independence” to include another “50th independence anniversary in 2011” to accommodate Southern Cameroons own independence date. While this may appear as an astute compromise to wiggle away from accusations of annexation, it appears this only helped in throwing a large dose of petrol or gas into an already explosive political conflagration since this only buttressed the legal arguments of the Southern Cameroonians as regards their stolen independence.
The United Nations on their part have maintained a diplomatic silence on this confused state of affairs. However, reliable reports state that the United Nations representative was invited to Yaoundé. His gift to the President of The Republic of Cameroon, it is alleged, was two flags – one for the Republic of Cameroon and the other for the Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. If these allegations are true, it would mean that Paul Biya has no legal mandate to rule the Southern Cameroons, and that the Southern Cameroons nationalists have been symbolically vindicated in all intents and purposes in totality. Consequently, Paul Biya’s projected visit to Bamenda is a non-event since he will be visiting but a foreign state, meaning he must obtain a visa from the UN and Southern Cameroons. If he violates this rule, any Southern Cameroonian in Bamenda has the right to make a citizen’s arrest of Paul Biya for trespassing a foreign soil without due permission. Now, theoretically, this is the case but whether this is enforceable is another matter altogether. However, whatever light we look at the grim political confusion, this omen is bad for this visit. This may possibly explain why the man runs away from his own created troubles.
It is interesting to note here that the aim of the visit, in real sense, is not to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Cameroon’s independence. Paul Biya went further by stating clearly that his visit to Bamenda was to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Cameroon army. In any political and military adventurism, there exist great risks – to the civilian population and the army itself. The mere mention of the military; and that they are to parade within the confines of a disputed territory is tantamount to performing military games in that territory and consequently evokes war or intent to occupation. This is because there is no evidence to show that those deployed military men will leave the territory after the “celebrations”. The world cannot be fooled in this instance because recent events on the planet bear witness to disguised military manoeuvres, regime change and other pretexts to celebrations or good “wars” have resulted to occupation of a weakened and desperate people by foreign powers that have a sinister and wholly disreputable agenda to loot by terror, barbarism and mediaeval subjugation.
When the United States went to Iraq, the excuse was to dislodge Sadam Hussein who purportedly harboured Weapons of Mass Destruction – a shameless lie. Now, whether Sadam was an evil tyrant or not is not the point in this expose, but that his overthrow did not lead to an immediate evacuation of the US military but that they stayed over to occupy Iraq with disastrous consequences for America, the civilian population in Iraq and the world. If we apply a similar scenario to the envisaged occupation of Bamenda, it is of little telling what the results and outcome will look like. In addition, the Southern Cameroons is not yet 50 years old nor have they ever had an army. The logical conclusion is that Paul Biya, in his attempt at subjugation, has inadvertently shot himself with his own gun.
To add to Paul Biya’s visible frights, is the spectre of The Africa Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) ruling and recommendations (Communication 266/2003) on The Republic of Cameroon Vs the People of Southern Cameroons in July 2009. According to these recommendations which are freely available on the African Commission’s website, the two parties would, by this time of last year, have engaged in constitutive talks to resolve the constitutional matters in relation to the projected Cameroon that came into existence in 1961. While the Southern Cameroons side have clearly, and officially, indicated their willingness to be part of these talks and fruitful dialogue under the auspices of the African Commission, and hopefully, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations, the government of the Republic of Cameroon appears to have asked for more time to prepare for the talks. But as to the time of this writing this essay, it is unclear as to their commitment to the resolution of the crisis. The Cameroon Communication Chief, Tchiroma Bakary, has gone to the media proclaiming, arrogantly and intransigently, that The Republic of Cameroon will not dialogue with Southern Cameroonians because “they want to divide Cameroon”. Whether Mr. Bakary is serious in his pronouncements and exhortations or not is unclear. Yet, his bellicose utterances only go a long stretch to cast doubts on the sincerity and integrity of the Biya regime, and as a consequence throw a large dose of mistrust between the two parties.
The Southern Cameroons issue is not whether people wish to live separately or in a Union: because the two states were originally separate; and that The Republic of Cameroon has been found wanting by violating the common norms of the envisaged Union; and using subterfuge and brute force, political fiat and blatant discrimination to stampede on the rights of the people of Southern Cameroons. It is, by nature, normal for those whose rights have been violated and their territory colonised to stand up to say No! To be surprised by such actions is itself surprising because the inalienable rights of man can never change. The following is that unless the Republic of Cameroon engages in sincere dialogue with Southern Cameroons, President Paul Biya’s visit to Bamenda would and should be considered an act of aggression; and that Paul Biya and the Cameroon army would be fully responsible for any opprobrium that may emerge if he defies the international community and Southern Cameroons people to visit Bamenda without consent as prescribed by international law. The right thing to have done or to do by any reasonable and wise leader would have been to announce before the entire Cameroon people, his intentions to abide by international laws, notably the Banjul verdict of the ACHPR, and the United Nations plebiscite arrangement in 1961 that brought forth contemporary Cameroon. Save this, his military visit to Bamenda is doomed to confusion – whether it happens now or later.
