General Deficiencies
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):
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/selfdet.shtml;
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml
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
Specific defects
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
Signed:
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
National Chairman
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
CC
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
The
media
No comments:
Post a Comment