The recent Buea Conference of Lawyers was a catastrophic failure against which, for the following sixty six points, the SCNC is appealing for its resolutions not to be circulated to the destinations previewed.
1. The Resolutions are extremely vague. There is no opening straight forward statement of a defined goal, which is predicated on a previous causal factor. Consequently, they are hanging in midair.
2. They should have re-articulated the core issue of the initial ultimatum to promptly return to the 1961 Federation, even though that demand was a colossal error.
3. Properly re-articulated, the resolutions would have acquired the springboard wherefrom to launch a punitive action as the repercussion to the regime’s bluff at the ultimatum.
4. This is what the public was expecting, because the Republic of Cameroun has repeatedly so behaved with impunity, and would have been put on miserable self-defense.
5. Worse still, the resolutions have been written in disorganized, incoherent, loose and repetitive language, which gives the impression that our defenders of Common Law have not yet mastered the unique Language of its exercise.
6. It is false to have addressed the Resolutions to the British Monarchy, which indicates inexcusably the unawareness that the center of Executive Power in the United Kingdom lies in Her Majesty’s government, and not with the Queen of England, which could alienate the Prime Minister.
7. The resolutions are also wrong to invite back the United Nations and Britain to resume joint action on the Southern Cameroons, as if the Trusteeship Agreement was still in force. We shall subsequently demonstrate the repeated declaration of the partners that their trusteeship responsibilities ended on 1st October 1961.
8. The error of inviting a re-birth of the Trusteeship stems from a decade of blundered misunderstanding, and misinforming of the public by the ill-named and apparently sponsored UNO-state, that the Southern Cameroons was never independent. Because the World Body has NEVER owned a state.
9. The arguments that if we were ever independent we would not be under the stranglehold of the Republic of Cameroun, while there is no meaningful independence “by joining”, are frivolous and inept.
10. May it be well understood that the claim of a plaintiff over stolen property cannot be nullified by its existence in the hands of the defendant at the time of the trial.
11. The controversy over the signification of “independence by joining” portrays the unfortunate unawareness of the three categories of the UN-approved independences of Resolution 1541,
12. There is also undeniable ignorance respecting the latitude of discretionary power implied in the Trusteeship Agreement for the Administering Authority, such that the British choice of option (b) for the Southern Cameroons is unquestionable.
13. Hence, the validity of our independence, even though “by joining,” is incontrovertible. However, it is unnecessary to elaborate upon it in this context. It suffices to simply refer our men of the Learned Profession to the following UN website sources (URL):
14. These sources further require a comparative scientific interpretation, of the meaning of “by joining” of Southern Cameroons in light of the identical post-independence or better still the Inter-Parliamentary Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
15. The East African instance by “Uniting” into the acronym of Tanzania just as the UN-envisaged “Federal United Cameroon Republic” for us is indicative. (See UN website source (URL):
16. Procedurally, the writing to the Governors operating in the Southern Cameroons is a timid action. The message should have been boldly addressed to their Head of State who alone can remove them, which would have also manifested the will power and determination of the Law Association.
17. The general UN recognition of de facto authority on the principle that “any government is better than none at all”, based on which the Republic of Cameroon is comfortably here, precludes any re-constituting of the Trusteeship as the mechanism to resolve the Southern Cameroons enigma.
18. It is regrettable that after the monumental error of May 2015, to have dared call for a return to the un-constituted federation of 1961, this very Association is widening its mistakes, because it is working in isolation.
19. Without interpretative capacity, the complexity of the Southern Cameroons question would, in spite of easy accessibility to the related UN Resolutions, remain fatally elusive to the Association.
20. It follows that the way forward does no longer lie in more “clarion calls” scores of which we have made to no avail, nor the ill-conceived option of exhortations to an armed struggle. As an Independent state, the Bakassi-type judicial procedure is highly promising to extricate us
21. The switch over from “Anglophone Common Law Lawyers Association” to “Cameroon Common Law Lawyers Association” instead of the relevant and impacting SCNC-proposed name of Southern Cameroons Lawyers Association is yet another blunder.
22. The flirting from a linguistic to an ambiguous appellation indicates the lack of grasp, by our men of the Learned Profession, of the essence of the struggle.
23. The Southern Cameroons issue is precisely THE QUESTION OF ANNEXATION, meaning the absorption or swallowing up of an independent state by another, and NOT the prostituting of irrelevant names.
24. For example, there is no moment at which resident Nigerians or Francophones in the Southern Cameroons will ever become bona fide or natural citizens, to be subjected to the modern day slavery conditions of our own citizens.
25. We perceive the denial by the so-called “Cameroon Common Law Lawyers Association” of the meaningful SCNC-proposed appellation of “Southern Cameroons Lawyers Association” to be rooted in the moral decadence of the corrupt-prone Association rather than on any rational basis.
26. Our initial arguments, in favor of a territorially-based appellation, held out enormous potential to have strengthened the Association’s case, galvanized similar reaction in other Trade Unions, curbed the false superiority complex of the Republic of Cameroun, and above all justified the Southern Cameroon’s quest for a separate sovereign statehood.
27. In paragraph (3) of the resolutions, the reference to the Southern Cameroons as “former” presupposes the acquiescence of the purported “Learned Profession” to the Francophone Republic’s indoctrination of the extinction of the State of Southern Cameroons.
28. Similarly the mentioning, even in passing, of the defunct name of “West Cameroon”, which was designed to strip the statehood entailed in the appellation of “Southern Cameroons” into a so-called “integral part” of the Republic of Cameroon, is a self affliction.
29. It condemns the “Noble Profession” and our people to annexation and its manifestations of marginalization, wherefrom the “Noble Profession” has no inherent right to demand any constitutional concessions from the Francophone Republic.
30. For several strong reasons the renunciation of the initial ultimatum to return to the 1961 Federation, while simultaneously insisting on the strict implementation of Resolution 1608, is the pinnacle of pure absurdity.
31. The concept of Federalism was inextricably bound with the purpose of Resolution 1608, so you cannot denounce Federalism, and invoke the Resolution. The analogy is that one cannot refuse a girl child while demanding a female.
32. The Resolution 1608 was the underpinning of the condition of “Independence by joining” against which our people demanded a third option. Unknowingly to most of us to date, the 1st October Independence inadvertently fulfilled that third option perfectly.
33. Therefore, no one in his right mind should be asking for implementation of a Resolution that will pull us back to the inferior option (b) of “Independence by joining”, or in the exact parlance of Resolution 1541”“Independence by a free association with an Independent state”.
34. The term ”free” is referring to the in-coming state (Southern Cameroons), which is required to also be Independent before consummating the federation on absolute “Equal Status”, and NOT as underlings.
35. Moreover, the Southern Cameroons was not at fault that the UN-prescribed International Conference did not hold. And to our further advantage, the UN did not call-off or suspend the independence.
36. Similarly, Britain whose absence critically changed the International quality of the Conference did not as well deny delivering the independence.
37. On the other hand, the Republic of Cameroun did not complain against a Federation with the Southern Cameroons without a prior Treaty, which could only have emerged from a standard International Conference.
38. Consequently undisturbed, the Southern Cameroons majestically moved to consummate a “Sovereign Independence” on 1st October 1961.
39. Our Independence is the superior type most African countries enjoyed, instead of the “independence by joining” which the supposed International Conference would have imposed by instrument of a Treaty.
40. That is why initially the Republic of Cameroun correctly attributed a representative star to the Southern Cameroons, though wrongly, on their flag.
41. Furthermore, they also deceptively changed their virgin name by inserting the term “Federal” to the prefix, becoming the “Federal Republic of Cameroon”.
42. Conversely, Nigeria did not effect any of these changes at the irretrievable “integration” or absorption of British Northern Cameroons. Because at “joining” Northern Cameroons was NOT an independent state.
43. That is also why Mr. Paul Biya made the following remarkable declarations at the Buea purported 50th Anniversary of Re-unification.
44. Said he: “History cannot forget that Buea was once the Headquarters of West Cameroon”, and “ History cannot also forget that Buea was once the Capital of Southern Cameroons”
45. The meaning is that as the seat of government of an un-independent territory, Buea was a Headquarters, but when it acceded to independence the very Buea transformed into a Capital.
46. It follows that Mr. Biya recognizes the separate sovereign Independence of Southern Cameroons, of which the supposed beneficiaries of the legal profession are stubborn cowards to accept up front. We only need Sovereign Recognition.
47. This awareness of our having consummated a separate sovereign Independence should dispel the obnoxious tenacity of the Association to such terms as “Anglophones”’ “marginalization”, “re-unification”, “national day”’ “national integration”, “national unity”, and “youth day”.
48. The Francophone Republic enjoys our usage of such self-destructive terms because they show our consent to the annexation and justify their taunting us as “Anglo-fools”
49. Tactfully imposed by the Francophone regime, the purpose is to divert our focus from the Truth of our Separate Independence, so that they would keep celebrating theirs every 1st January under the disguise of New Year.
50. In the long run, when our senior generations, who know the truth, would have passed away our children would slavishly embrace their date of independence as the only that ever was.
51. We declare that any refusal of the Independence of 1st October 1961 to demand for a second one is abominably regressive. And also warn that there is practically no room for redressing any of these failures short of complete separation between the two countries.
52. There is no way to make a treaty now. It might have been possible if the democratically elected government of Southern Cameroons was not scattered by the Republic of Cameroon, which cannot now work out the treaty alone
53. Indeed, a full sitting government of Southern Cameroonians in Buea by Universal suffrage is required, to launch any genuine referendum of the Scottish type on a federation between the two Countries.
54. Even the much rumored constitutional reforms to provide for a Federation and a Vice Presidency for the Southern Cameroons, which some of our naïve political elite are clamoring for, is another giant deception.
55. Without a prior Treaty, there is no anchor to any constitutional reform, hence no access to an International Tribunal when the constitution is violated. That is why Article 47 (1) of the 1961 constitution was deleted by a mere executive order (Decree).
56. There have also been four constitutional changes, climaxing in the pitiless dismissals of Vice Presidents J.N. Foncha and S.T. Muna, while the people of Southern Cameroon watched on helplessly. What a colonized people need is de-colonization, and not ranking positions in the government of the colonizer.
57. We have undertaken a detailed analysis of these concepts in the 72 page petition, by reason of 400 paragraphs of cogent arguments, to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Committee. So there is no need for another detailed explanation here.
58. Obviously, the much criticized Grade Two teachers of 1961 were better men in as much as they were willing to learn but did not have experts in political Science to consult,
59. Our generation is the reverse. Although we command tons of certificates of formal education, the base is extremely narrow. And binding us to professional conceitedness, we naively presume its superiority over every other field of learning, whereas we are absolutely empty.
60. There is no possibility of instant wisdom on this matter to the Association by research. Their professional expertise is the police-type elementary investigations of minor matters.
61. An adequate research capacity demands the ability to digest the political nomenclatures, and the nuances of terms and expressions interwoven between facts, without which they would even loose their intended appeal to an International Tribunal.
62. In the light of the foregoing, if the Lawyers Association is uncomfortable working with the SCNC, we strongly advise them to consult experts at the departments of Political Science, (not History), in the universities. The intricacies of the Southern Cameroons question preclude it as a parochial legal issue.
63. The narrow mindedness of conceiving it as a legal matter was the fundamental causal factor of the SCNC early failures. None of the (10) first National Chairmen of the movement, who were all stalwarts of the legal profession, was able to move the struggle forward even minimally.
64. It took the SCNC 33 years to realize the necessity of granting leadership to whoever is knowledgeable and not on the basis of their profession or region.
65. Finally, we are not against the Lawyers Association, or seeking its political subsumption under the SCNC. Our utmost desire is that they be in constant touch with our Liberation Movement, just as the different sister Movements are in regular mutual consultations.
66. Otherwise, there would surely be the frustration of duplicating effort. More disastrously, the risk of new incomers unraveling the achievements of the SCNC and others over the years would heighten.
Long live the SCNC
Long live the right to sovereignty
Long live the looming Republic of Southern Cameroons
Done in Bamenda this 17th day of February 2016
THOMAS N. NWACHAN
B.A. Hist., M.A Pol. Sc, M.A Mgt.
1969 combined winner of Fulbright of US Congress, and
The Lawrence Wien International Scholarships
Through Brandeis University, Mass, USA
Formerly the Secretary for Information and Communication,
The Executive Secretary General, and
The Researcher and Filer of the SCNC current Petition
To the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Committee
The Secretary General of the United Nations
The British Prime minister
President Paul BIYA
The President, UN Human Rights Committee, Geneva
The Secretary General, AU Addis Ababa
\ The British High Commissioner & the ambassadors US, Germany & France, Yaoundé
The UNDP Permanent Representative, Yaoundé
The EU Delegate, Yaoundé
The President Cameroon Bar Council, Yaoundé
Amnesty International, London
Human Rights Watch, London
National Endowment for Democracy, NED, Washington DC
The National Human Rights Committee, Yaoundé