NIGERIA WILL COMPLY WITH THE ICJ RULING OF OCTOBER 10, 2002: THE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA TRANSCENDS BAKASSI

By admin on Jul 20, 2008 | In

7/20/2008

On October 10, 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) granted the ownership of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.[1] Following the ruling, both sides, Cameroon and Nigeria, have taken positive steps, most notably of which, is the Green Tree Agreement [GTA][2] aimed at the implementation of the ICJ Judgment. However, in the past nine months, there have been acts of violence against Cameroon officials in the area[3], court action by some in Nigeria to halt the August 14, 2008 hand over[4], Nigeria’s Senate declaration that the GTA is unconstitutional[5] and the pronouncement that the Nigerian military was not consulted.[6] Not surprisingly, these series of events have raised concerns and anxiety in the respective territories of both nations.

It would be simplistic to dismiss these series of events as meant for internal consumption in Nigerian. However, the consequences of some of these acts, whether intended or not, have gravely affected both Nigerians and Cameroonians. From an historic perspective, when the Northern Cameroons opted for integration with the Federation of Nigeria on June 1, 1961,[7]as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria, families from both sides of the border were impacted, during the Biafra war from May 30, 1967 until January 15, 1970,[8] again families on both sides of the common boundary were also impacted. Today, the same can be said of the series of events involving Bakassi. Fortunately, the one constant has been the astuteness and appreciation of a fundamental and controlling fact by the leadership of both nations.[9] The symbiotic relationship between Cameroon and Nigeria transcends Bakassi and in the final analysis these series of events will not hinder the transfer of the administration of Bakassi to Cameroon on August 14, 2008.

The positions that the GTA is unconstitutional under the Nigerian Constitution; that the Nigerian military was not consulted prior to its ratification by former President Olusegun Obasanjo; or the application for a Nigerian court to void a judgment of the ICJ, are necessary and important expression of opinions in a democratic society. However, a casual examination, of the rationale advanced for each of these positions, suggests a general confusion in these quarters about the scope and purpose of the Green Tree Agreement.

Application by anyone to a Nigerian court to void a judgment of the ICJ, while an expression of freedom of speech, begs of intellectual dishonesty given the well settled principle of jurisprudence that a lower court cannot review a decision of a higher court. In fact, the lower court in this case, a Nigerian High Court, is bound by the decision of the higher court, the ICJ, recognized as such by the sovereign.[10] Similarly, the suggestion that “the former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, presumptively did not consult the military before the cession of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon,”[11] should somehow invalidate a Judgment of the ICJ is misplaced and perplexing, irrespective of any security concerns.[12]

Former President Obasanjo did not relinquish Bakassi or caused a cession of any territory under Nigerian sovereign jurisdiction to Cameroon. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true. When President Obasanjo signed the GTA on June 12, 2006, Bakassi was already internationally recognized as being an integral part of the sovereign territory of Cameroon.[13] Indeed, the GTA provides; “Nigeria recognizes the sovereignty of Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsula in accordance with the [sic] judgment of the International Court of Justice of 10 October 2002 in the matter of land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. Cameroon and Nigeria recognize the land and maritime boundary between the two countries as delineated by the Court and commit themselves to continuing the process of implementation already begun.”[14] Consistent with the clear understanding of the parties, “No part of this [sic] GTA shall be interpreted as a renunciation by Cameroon of its sovereignty over any part of its territory.[15]

Thus, the GTA does not convey any land to Cameroon, but was rather intended to be a guide for the implementation of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of October 10, 2002. Specifically, “This Agreement shall in no way be construed as an interpretation or modification of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 10 October 2002, for which the Agreement only sets out the modalities of implementation [emphasis added].[16] The GTA is not a treaty permitting cession of Bakassi by Nigeria to Cameroon, but an embodiment of the modalities by which the administration of the peninsula by Nigeria[17] would be transferred to Cameroon. The scope of the GTA is, therefore, analogous to an instructional mechanism for the consolidation of the de facto and de jure sovereignty of Cameroon over its own territory.[18] In this regard, Nigeria had accepted the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction by a declaration dated 14 August 1965, deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 September 1965. Similarly, Cameroon had also accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction by a declaration deposited with the Secretary-General on 3 March 1994. The Secretary-General transmitted copies of the Cameroon Declaration to the Parties to the Statute eleven-and-a-half months later.[19] Thus, having accepted the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction, both parties are bound by the decision of the ICJ in this matter.

Since the GTA is not a treaty permitting cession of Bakassi by Nigeria to Cameroon, but rather an embodiment of the modalities by which the administration of the peninsula by Nigeria would be transferred to Cameroon, the question arises whether the GTA must be ratified by the Nigerian National Assembly to be constitutional and thus binding on Nigeria. We have already noted that the leaders of both countries had previously committed themselves and their countries to honor and abide by the ruling of the ICJ before that Court ever rendered its judgment. In addition, both parties are bound by their voluntary acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Also in the introduction Section of the GTA, the parties [sic] “reaffirmed their willingness to peacefully implement the judgment of the International Court of Justice” and then proceeded to recognize the existence of the sovereignty of Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsula before the adoption of the GTA on June 12, 2006.

Proponents of the constitutional argument fail to recognize the clear distinction between treaty making and implementation. In the context of treaty making or ratification, a country such as Nigeria acquiesces to be bound by a treaty.[20] The process invariably involves a transfer of a limited aspect or a limitation of supreme national sovereignty by the supreme collective sovereignty. Thus, when Cameroon and Nigeria ratified the treaty on the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction, they obligated their countries to honor and enforce the ICJ decision. Conversely, implementation of a treaty, sometimes referred to as domestication, may require legislative action when the performance of the obligations of the state entails alteration of existing domestic law.[21] In light of the nature of the GTA as an implementation document, what then is the legal effect of non domestication of the agreement by Nigeria? The simple response is that non domestication of the GTA by the Nigerian National Assembly would not relieve Nigeria of its clearly defined obligations under the judgment of the ICJ of October 2002 and similarly under the Green Tree Agreement.[22]

Nigeria, as a member of the United Nations and a party to the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the ICJ, is under the obligation “to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.”[23] In the event of non-compliance with the judgment of the ICJ by Nigeria, Cameroon may invoke the authority of the UN Security Council to impose appropriate sanctions.[24] However, given the critical importance of the historic and symbiotic relationship between Cameroon and Nigeria and considering that non of the arguments advanced to support the rejection of the transfer of administrative authority from Nigeria to Cameroon withstands a modicum of scrutiny[25], we are convinced that Nigeria will stand by its official position and hand over the administrative authority over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon on August 14, 2008 as scheduled.

Simon W Tache

[1] Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 303 (2002)

[2] AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA CONCERNING THE MODALITIES OF WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY IN THE BAKASSI PENINSULA, June 12, 2006, known as the “Green Tree Agreement.”

[3] According to Cameroon's Army Chief of Staff, General Rene Claude Ze Meka, the DO of Kombo Abedimo was heading nine-man delegation on his maiden official visit to a fishing port in Kombo when tragedy struck “Cameroon: Bakassi Boils Again - DO, 5 Soldiers Shot”, The Post (Buea), 12 June 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200806121075.html; Nearly 30 Cameroon soldiers have been killed and more than five wounded by so called unknown attackers. See, for example, http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/13309

[4] “Nigeria: Court Urged to Halt Handover of Bakassi”. 18 July 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200807180122.html

[5] “Nigerian Senate Rejects Bakassi Peninsular Hand-Over”, November 24, 2007, http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/13309

[6] What bearing if any does the failure of a Head of State to consult the military brass have to do with implementation of a judgment of the ICJ? “Nigeria: War Imminent Over Bakassi - Defense Chief”, July 17, 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200807170436.html

[7] UN Resolution 1608 (XV) of April 21, 1961

[8] On May 30, 1967, Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared the South Eastern Region of Nigeria an independent state of Biafra with a capital at Enugu. The ensuing civil war, that lasted until January 15, 1970, caused nearly one million deaths; Hanbury, Prof H G (January 1967). "OE News - News from All Quarters". The Epsomian XCVII (1): 35. Retrieved on 2007-08-26. “Colonel C O Ojukwu, Military Governor of Eastern Region, Nigeria was vigorously commended in The Daily Telegraph; "Biafra: Thirty years on," BBC. 13 January 2000. Thirty years later, Nigeria cannot find peace. Cameroonians must make every effort not to succumb to the same pitfall. [9] Even before the ICJ ruling, the leaders of Nigeria and Cameroon had already committed themselves on September 5, 2002 to abide by a decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a border dispute between the two countries, and would restore friendly relations.
“CAMEROON-NIGERIA: Obasanjo, Biya to abide by ICJ border decision”, ABIDJAN, 6 September 2002, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=34174

[10] As the lawyer representing the Nigerian government, lawyer Abel Ezioko, correctly pointed out, “the High Court could not to sit as an appeal tribunal to the ICJ.”This court cannot upturn the judgment of the ICJ,” Nigeria: Cameroonian Deputy Governor Abducted in Bakassi, June 11, 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200806110028.html

[11] Ironically, he continued, “He said, "I am not sure that the military made any contribution to the Green Tree Agreement, but I know that the then Chief of Defense Staff, General Martin Luther Agwai, traveled with the former President to New York when the agreement was signed." “Nigeria: War Imminent Over Bakassi - Defense Chief” Leadership (Abuja), 17 July 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200807170436.html

[12] This author can assure General Owoye Azazi, that the Nigerian military has been in consultation with regard to the Bakassi maritime boundary delineation since 1970.

[13] See Note 1.

[14] Article 1 of the GTA

[15] Article 4 of the GTA

[16] Article 7 of the GTA

[17] Annex I(3)(c) of the GTA directs Nigeria “ not engage in any activity in the Zone which would complicate or hinder the transfer of authority to Cameroon;”

[18] The presence of the Nigerian Administration on the peninsular did not and could not destroy the Cameroon sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsular. This fact was clearly recognized and validated by the ICJ.

[19] After examining the legislative history of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court concluded “that the general rule reflected in Articles 16 and 24 of the Vienna Convention, which, the Court observes, may only be applied to declarations accepting the Court's jurisdiction as obligatory by analogy, is that: the deposit of instruments of ratification. acceptance, approval or accession to a treaty establishes the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty; and that the treaty enters into force as regards that State on the day of the deposit. Thus the rules adopted in this sphere by the Vienna Convention correspond to the solution adopted by the Court in the case concerning Right of Passage over Iizdirlir Territory,” ICJ/. Reports 1957, p. 146

[20] Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.

[21] Contrast with [sic] the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;” Article II, section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

[22] A party to a treaty “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty,” Article 27 and a party to a treaty “may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance”46 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

[23] Article 94(1) of the UN Charter and Article 59 of the Statute of the ICJ)

[24] Article 94(2) of the UN Charter.

[25] For an analysis in accord, see “BAKASSI: CRITICAL LOOK AT THE GREEN TREE AGREEMENT” by Professor Edwin Egede, PhD, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=edwin_egede

Happy New Year - 2013

By admin on Dec 31, 2012 | In Announcements

 

clip_image006 The events of the year 2008 ushered in a transformational period in world and human affairs. Although reactionary forces surfaced with a vengeance in 2010, the year 2012 provided a re-affirmation and validation of the transformational course. Indeed, as we ring in 2013, we must remember the transformational period's message is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Therefore, no matter your station in life, Resolve in 2013 and henceforth to make a contribution, however minute, to the realization of this goal for neighbors, friends, fellow citizens and yes even strangers.

We express our sincere thanks and gratitude to all our visitors, readers, critics, friends, supporters and contributors.

clip_image007

           
     
 
   
 
     

PEOPLE AND NOT GUNS KILL PEOPLE?

By admin on Dec 16, 2012 | In News and Politics

 

We as a nation have decided that an individual's right to possess and own a gun is constitutionally protected.[i] Similarly, we have also declared that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"[ii]. Thus, we have consciously ingrained in our priority system the pursuit of happiness or human life and gun ownership as fundamental rights. Underlying these stakes is the assumption that all humans are rational beings. Unfortunately, as the mass shootings since columbine[iii], Colorado and most recently in Newton[iv], Connecticut have shown, in all facets of human conduct, the exception is always the true test of the rule. We extend our deep condolences and sympathy to the affected families.

When we construct a value system based on rationality, we, by definition, recognize that there are irrational beings or people with "diseased minds" among us. Hence, we protect not only the rational, but also the irrational[v] human beings. Yet, when a tragedy such as the shootings at Newton occurs, we tend to ask "why"? Of course, we need to answer the "why" question in order to offer treatment to those in need. Nevertheless, we already know the answer to the "why" question. We do not expect a rational human being to carry out such an atrocity. Only a person with a diseased mind can be so cruel and merciless. Unfortunately and for whatever reasons, sometimes we do not identify or diagnose the degree of the disease in a person with a diseased mind until an overt manifestation occurs and by which time it is often too late to intervene.

Recognizing that even a fundamental right can be inadvertently or willfully abused, the long term question we should be asking is "What" made this horrific act possible? Framed in this fashion, we can immediately identify five stakeholders; society, the diseased minds, the gun manufacturers and distributors, the victims and the government as shown in the diagram depicted below.

clip_image001

Fig. 1 - Stakeholders in the Debate over Gun Violence

In each path to a shooting tragedy, a diseased mind acquires a gun or guns through the gun dealers' chain, then encounters and kills the victim(s). Society is shocked and in its search for answers, some call upon the government to band private sale of assault rifles. On the other hand, some proclaim almost dismissively, "People kill people and not guns". Then a third group ponders if there can ever be a solution given the many conflicting interests.

True people do kill people by the use of means other than guns. However, people also do kill people using guns and recently at an increasingly alarming scale. Ironically, the victims, the diseased minds and the gun makers and distributors are all members of the same society that has granted them fundamental rights to liberty, life and gun ownership. No wonder, governmental intervention is handicapped by these same fundamental rights and the activities of interest groups. Yet, the government, by implication society, must recognize that there need to be a complete overhaul of the gun manufacturers, market delivery and use process. Whatever are the underlying value conflicts or the ideological differences, society must overcome them and undertake a unified effort to put into place a system that would reduce the number of deaths caused by the use of guns.[vi] No cost benefit analysis would justify the loss of even a single life if it can be prevented. We will defer this task to the public policy analysts.

Such a comprehensive Guns Manufacturing and Use Safety System would be the product of economic, educational, social and legal balance. Thus, the components of the system would encompass; biometrics on all new guns, apply the technology to limit the number of rounds dischargeable before the finger interlock unit engages to 3-6, impose psychological testing and counseling for each gun user, require and implement a new to old gun exchange program, place a band on the use of all guns not in compliance after five years and impose a mandatory one year sentence per gun for anyone who manufactures, sells or places in the stream of commerce, or possesses, or owns a non-compliant gun after the expiration of the five years.

Here is a cursory look at the components of the Comprehensive Guns Manufacturing and Use Safety System(CGMUSS).

1. Mandate biometrics on all new guns

Today biotechnology is no longer science fiction[vii]. Biometrics, also known as biometric authentication, is the means by which a person can be identified through their characteristics or traits, such as finger prints, eye iris, etc. Gun manufacturers should agree to voluntarily or be required to equip new manufactured guns with this technology, one gun, one finger controlled by an interlock firing mechanism. The purpose is to ensure that the true owner is the one actually firing the weapon and to deter gun theft.

2. Limit the number of rounds dischargeable before the finger interlock engages to 3-6

The technology would also be programmable such that when a person purchases a gun, the default mode in the finger interlock unit would be zero or cannot discharge. The buyer would then take the gun to the permit office where trained officials would use his/her finger print to set the identity and number of rounds the owner can fire upon pulling the trigger before the interlock system engages. In order for the owner to fire the gun again, he/she would have to re-identify themselves (30-60 seconds interval). Such a function gives the owner time to reflect and confirm their intended action; gives a trained law enforcement personnel present at the scene enough time to react and prevent accidental discharges. Most importantly, this security feature offers any potential victim(s) the opportunity to escape.

3. Impose psychological testing for each gun buyer/user

As an integral part of the gun ownership licensing process, the new owner or applicant for a gun license must first undergo the usual background check and psychological testing before a license is issued. The object here is to minimize the risk that the gun falls into the hands of a person with a diseased mind.

4. Require and implement a gun exchange program.

The federal government in collaboration with states governments would establish exchange centers for the collection of the old, but functioning guns. This process applies only to guns that are operational and can be discharged. First, an owner will take the gun to a dealer or appraiser for valuation as to market worth. The dealer/appraiser would then issue a value certification in a form previously authorized by the states. The owner then presents this receipt at an exchange center for reimbursement or credit towards a new gun purchase in exchange for depositing the old functioning gun at the exchange center. Obviously, the objective here is to reduce the number of these old, but operational guns in circulation.

5. Place a band on all guns not so compliant after five years

The gun manufacturers, dealers and owners would be given five years during which to transition from the old functioning guns to the new ones. By the end of year five, every gun dealer, seller or owner would have the newer biometric guns. The expectation would be that all old and functioning guns would have exited society to be recycled.

6. Impose a mandatory one year sentence for any one manufacturing, selling or carrying a non-compliant gun after the expiration of the five years

In an effort to rid society of functioning old guns, there must be compliance legislation imposing a one year mandatory sentence prison term for any manufacturer, distributor, seller or owner of a non-compliant gun after the expiration of the five years. Such a law would serve as a deterrent and convey the societal message that the freedom to own guns has a countervailing responsibility to protect human life.

We do not speculate whether or not such a system would have prevented the Columbine and the like's tragedies. Only a proper post implementation evaluation of such or similar programs will provide the answer. One thing is certain; there would be a significant drop in the number of gun thefts and illegal guns in circulation in society.

[i]Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Ratified on December 15, 1791 and it is well settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

[ii] Declaration of Independence of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Declaration of Independence, pursuit of happiness, http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org/index.php/ideas/57-pursuit-of-happiness; to be protected by the Amendment XIV, Section 1, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 393 (1923)(Liberty includes things like freedom from bodily restraint, work, education, marry, establish a home, raise children, worship .)

[iii] On April 20, 1999, in the small, suburban town of Littleton, Colorado, two high-school senior shot and killed thirteen people and wounded twenty one others before the two died. http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/columbine.htm

[iv] On December 14, 2012, a gunman shot and killed his mother and 26 other people, including 20 children, before turning a gun on himself. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/school-shooting-connecticut/1769367/

[v] For example, the protection afforded criminals under the VI Amendment to wit:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense".

[vi] In 2007, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control, 31,224 people died from gun injuries. However, the most alarming statistic is that there are more than 100 million handguns owners in the United

[vii] See, http://www.biometrics.org/ more information and resources.

Tags: columbine, constitutional fundamental rights, diseased minds, gun ownership, guns, human life, manufacturing, newton, pursuit of happiness, safety, system, use

CAMEROON AT A CROSS ROAD 50+ YEARS AFTER RE-UNIFICATION

By admin on Nov 14, 2012 | In News and Politics

clip_image002

Cognizant of the crucial role of constructive dialogue in the resolution of any dispute, we applaud the efforts of those involved in the creation of organizations such as the Cameroon Council for Re-unification [hereinafter CAMCORE] and Southern Cameroon National Council [hereinafter SCNC]. These organizations owe their existence to the emerging consensus that the so called "Anglophone problem"[1] must be addressed expeditiously through dialogue and all inclusive engagement.  Although these efforts have taken different paths, they have one ultimate purpose - making Cameroon a veritable nation built on the rules of law and accountability. However, the divergence and at times conflicting messages of these organizations exhibit a common flaw- the inability to adequately define the root cause of the problem.

The SCNC took the first important initial step, which is recognition of the existence of the problem. It is axiomatic that in order to solve any problem, there must be recognition and admission of its existence before its root cause can be identified. In this regard, the SCNC has succeeded in launching the pad for real dialogue. Yet, notwithstanding its recognition and admission of the existence of the problem "annexation of West Cameroon by East Cameroon", the SCNC failed to effectively define the root cause of the problem.

Instead, the SCNC made an unsupportable assumption - "the gorge between the two territories is now too wide for credible dialogue". Consequently, the SCNC's prescription for the cure is secession? Arguably, this would only be as a last resort. A review of the position advanced by the SCNC since December 30, 1999, leads an impartial observer to conclude that there is a disconnect between their recognition and admission of the existence of a problem and the concrete identification of the root cause of the problem. Hence, their prescription of the solution is incorrect. Nevertheless, whether we agree with the conclusion reached by SCNC or not, their message appears to be genuine, even if often overshadowed by confusion.

CAMCORE[2] is a new entrant into the debate over the so called "Anglophone problem". This group claims to be comprised of "UK based Diaspora Cameroonians open to working with a cross section of Cameroonians and friends of Cameroon, within and out of the country. We seek to call on all Cameroonians of good will to join us in realizing "the Cameroon Dream" of a "One and Indivisible Fatherland", based on transparency, enlightenment, respect for the rule of Law, respect for human life and dignity, and above all, create an environment where all can achieve their full potential" they stated.

Unlike the SCNC, CAMCORE fails to even acknowledge, recognize and admit the existence of the "Anglophone problem". Yet, this problem is arguably the raison d'étre of its existence. This critical omission, while predictable, is at the center of the credibility issues confronting CAMCORE. Indeed, the average Cameroonian is left to ponder the real purpose of palliative, but non sequitur statements of objectives that are not focused on the critical issue at hand - the "Anglophone problem". True, ground organization is necessary for purposes of dissemination of information. However, ground organization may or may not lead to constructive dialogue; especially if the entire premise of the intended dialogue is not based on sound principles geared toward eradicating the root cause of a systemic failure.

The title of the organization reads, "Cameroon Council for Re-unification". This title is not only puzzling, but raises legitimate questions about the true purpose of CAMCORE. We will accept the ordinary meaning of "Council" as used here. However, we already know that re-unification between the two Cameroons occurred on October 1, 1961. After 50+ years what re-unification is being strutted here? What is the event that has precipitated the creation of CAMCORE? To re-unify an already existing re-unification and when did that event occur, etc..? Similarly, the phrase, "to join us in realizing "the Cameroon Dream" of a "One and Indivisible Fatherland", while appearing lofty and commendable implies that the country is divided and re-unification is now only a dream. Again, the average citizen is left bewildered and to conjecture about the real purpose and intentions of CAMCORE. Why are we still dreaming of a "One and Indivisible Fatherland", after 50+ years of independence and re-unification? The answer is simple and the title of CAMCORE says it all. When we ask the wrong questions, we get the wrong answers.

While we agree with the general proposition that Cameroon is and should be "One and Indivisible Fatherland" for its citizenry and prosperity, we are, however, concerned that countervailing forces of the status quo may be at work here. We question the timing and rush to prematurely label any group of Cameroonians terrorists, terrorist sympathizers or affiliates without clear and convincing evidence. To advocate peaceful coexistence and concurrently level or acquiesce the leveling of serious unsupported accusations of the magnitude, the "South West Chiefs Conference and the North West Fons Union, the group uncovered SCNC's links with terrorist groups" clearly undermine the credibility of CAMCORE.

The publication of this statement in this manner, even if true, further raises some critical questions. Did this allegation come from one or both the South West Chiefs Conference and the North West Fons Union; when were these links uncovered by either or both groups; and did authorities in Cameroon independently confirmed the veracity of this allegation and approved its publication? In light of the seriousness of this statement, we hope this was not the unilateral and reckless act of someone trying to score political points. Whoever is the culprit, he/she/they do Cameroon a disservice.

A statement of this nature hurts rather than advances peaceful coexistence. For indeed, if there are Cameroonians who are associated with any known terrorists group as defined under international law, then they should be identified and exposed. However, we should all categorically reject any rush to disseminate unsubstantiated allegations, witch hunts, or unsavory attempts to label citizens terrorists because they express different political views. Such questionable actions are antithesis to the objective of a "One and Indivisible Fatherland".

Conceivably, some misguided citizens may be sympathetic to the Biafra syndrome or secession, but even if such sympathies exist, they do not equate to "links with terrorists groups." In fact, the danger of a lingering of the so called "Anglophone problem" is the likelihood that it could force some desperate Cameroonians into an unholy alliance with those in Nigeria who still harbor some nostalgia of a Biafra Statehood. Thus, we must caution against reckless political machinations likely to create unintended, but dire consequences. The more time we spend on addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause of the so called "Anglophone problem", the harder it would be to promote meaningful dialogue.

During an interview with a reporter, Mr. Emmanuel Fuh Neba, CAMECORE Chief Executive Officer, said, "Cameroon's once revered traditional authorities are helplessly watching their power progressively shrink and their institutions teetering on the brink of collapse. Their powers are eroding, palaces collapsing, and there are virtually little or no stipends for them. In fact, they have been shamefully relegated to the hallmarks of 'royal beggars".[3]

Although Mr. Neba makes a correct statement of fact, he fails to elaborate on the principal cause of this malaise. Instead, he makes the leap to "CAMCORE is working on a proposal that will provide a platform where traditional authorities can be seen as embodiments of wisdom and character, preserve Cameroon's tradition and cultural heritage". Again, we applaud the sincere efforts of Mr. Neba. However, working on a proposal that may never materialize is not an offer and no one at CAMCORE really thinks a mere proposal will provide the Cameroon Nobility with a platform when their biggest one was deliberately snatched out from underneath them? The propensity to address the symptoms rather than the root cause of any problem never provides a solution and invariably leads to disillusionment. Our purpose is not to dissuade or discourage the actions of persons of good will; we are simply compelled by our obligation to alert and inform of likely pitfalls and challenges.

Although the CAMCORE and SCNC appear to have expounded different visions on resolving the so called, "Anglophone problem", their efforts have illuminated the problem. Unfortunately, the problem is apt to exacerbate unless and until squarely confronted. Current efforts are directed at the symptoms instead of its root cause; mostly because the protagonists ask the wrong questions and expect a magical emergence of the correct answers.

True, Cameroon comprises of different educational, judicial and linguistic systems, but these are the very unique characteristics that constitute the embodiment of Cameroon's uniqueness and vitality. Incidentally, there are those who are under the illusion that they can eliminate these inherent aspirational national characteristics by reducing them into one system. This is a false interpretation of the meaning of "One and Indivisible Fatherland". Such attempts are not only doomed to fail, but will continue to engender discord. No wonder then that 50+ years after re-unification, Cameroon finds herself at a cross road. Accordingly, "all Cameroonians of good will" should embrace the challenge to incorporate the dynamic characteristics of this vibrant land into a cohesive and truly democratic nation based on the rule of law. To accomplish this objective and, therefore, ensure that the country's territorial integrity remains sacrosanct and indivisible,[4] we must resolve the root cause of the so called "Anglophone problem".

[1] Some authors have referred to the "Anglophone problem" as the "Marginalization of West Cameroonians" by the government of the Republic of Cameroon.

[2] CAMCORE is a new entrant, launched in the British House of Commons on November 7, 2011 as part of the "Big Society Initiative for Africa"

[3] "50th Anniversary Celebration of Reunification: The Diasporas to Consolidate Peace and Unity" The Eye Newspaper

http://cameroonlatest.blogspot.com/2012/08/50th-anniversary-celebration-of_24.html

[4] To accomplish this goal, the Right Questions must be posed in order to uncover the right answers. If we keep asking the wrong questions we will keep getting the wrong answers. Sure, some are probably wondering what those correct questions and answers are or where they are? Well, soon we will pose the five burning questions that many in their own way have attempted to answer. In the process, we will explore the root cause of the problem and formulate definitive answers to these questions in the hope to provide a road map conducive to a resolution of the crisis which is actually broader than just the so called "Anglophone problem". We submit that any Cameroonian who does not recognize that there exist the so called "Anglophone problem", is either in denial or disingenuous.

Tags: anglophone problem, cameroon, conflict resolution, east cameroon, nigeria, west cameroon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>