Southern Cameroons national council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This “federal” LRC constitution was merely a change of name by the independent state of La Republique du Cameroun, which just enlarged its (LRC) belly to swallow Southern Cameroons that had not attained independence. A much clearer example of big fish swallowing small fish is difficult to comprehend. The small fish would have been swallowed into the belly of the big fish in the following political equation:
Big fish (A) + Small fish (B) = Big fish (A) , (LRC swallows Southern Cameroons; the result = LRC).
That is how, it would seem, Southern Cameroons ended up becoming two provinces inside the “belly” of the State of LRC. It is believed that ever since LRC attained independence on 1st January 1960, it has never changed its name in UN records to reflect these in-house changes of name over the years, viz United Federal or simply Federal. Thus the borders of the UN registered state of LRC inherited from the French at independence on 1st January 1960, when Southern Cameroons was not part of that state, remain inviolate. That is why, at the opportune time, LRC reverted to its original name at birth, viz. La Republique du Cameroun, after having successfully annexed the non-independent state of Southern Cameroons, which it had reduced to two of its ten provinces.
Cry, the Beloved Country*
Printer Friendly Tell a Friend
9 Feb 2007, 1:31 AM
It has been widely reported that on Saturday 20th January 2007, elements of the SCNC who were holding a Press Conference in Bamenda, were arrested by security forces and are under detention. The Sun newspaper of 24th January 2007 reported that “SCNC Chairman Risks Dying in Detention.” This incident, following so soon after two students of the University of Buea were slain by security forces using live bullets; the killing of workers at Ndu Tea Estate, the satanic desecration with fire and human feaces of the altar of a holy church of God in Molyko, and the assassination in cold blood of Professor Njiki in Bomaka, Buea, is very disquieting. I am deeply troubled and saddened by the thought that Southern Cameroons is slowly degenerating into a lawless and unsafe place. This is not the country I grew up in, where windows were left open at night without metal protectors, and thieving was the exception rather than, as of now, the rule.
After deep reflection, I am driven to the conclusion that these phenomena have their root causes in a union between Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun, LRC, that was doomed to fail from the outset in 1961. Some of these negative practices, hitherto unknown in Southern Cameroons, are the osmotic outcome of this co-habitation.
After World War I, when Germany was defeated, the former German colony of Kamerun was divided between France and Great Britain as Administering Powers who had adjoining territories to the ex-German colony. With the creation of the UN, both France and Britain administered these territories on Trust from the United Nations, on the following terms as spelt out in Art 3 of the Trusteeship Agreement signed on 13 December 1946:
“The Administering Authority undertakes to administer the Territory in such a manner as to achieve the basic objectives of the international trusteeship system laid down in Art 76 of the United Nations Charter. The Administering Authority further undertakes to collaborate fully with the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Trusteeship Council in the discharge of all their functions as defined in Art 87 of the United Nations Charter, and to facilitate any periodic visits to the Territory which they may deem necessary, at times to be agreed upon with the Administering Authority.”
Art 1 of the Trusteeship Agreement defined the Trust Territory which Britain was to administer and prepare for self-government or independence as follows:
“The Territory to which this Agreement applies comprises that part of the Cameroons lying to the west of the boundary defined by the Franco-British Declaration of 10 July 1919, and more exactly defined in the Declaration made by the Governor of the Colony and Protetorate of Nigeria and the Governor of the Cameroons under French mandate, which was confirmed by the exchange of Notes between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government on 9 January 1931. This line may, however, be slightly modified by mutual agreement between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the French Republic where an examination of the localities shows that it is desirable in the interests of the inhabitants.”
Thus, the UN Trust territory of British Cameroons, which Britain undertook to lead to self-government or independence, comprised the administrative regions known as British Northern Cameroons and British Southern Cameroons, which comprised ONE Territory, to be administered under ONE Trust Agreement. France ultimately led its own Trust Territory, French Cameroun, to independence on 1st January 1960, with a seat at the UN on 20th September 1960.
Britain’s Betrayal Britain, however, failed to advance its trust territory (86,214 sq. kms) to independence, but rather devised a scheme whereby it dribbled the UN to accept arranging separate plebiscites in British Northern as well as in British Southern Cameroons, allegedly to ascertain the wishes of the population as to how they desired their independence “by joining” either Nigeria or LRC, when the Trusteeship Agreement it had signed contained no such conditionality.
It is clear from the declassified documents which are now available to the public that Britain strenuously maneuvered to exclude the option of granting total independence to its Cameroon Trust Territory, contrary to the pledge it took under the UN Trust Agreement to lead its Trust Territory to self-government or independence, and in spite of having joined 63 other states who voted in favour of the independence of Southern Cameroons by UN Res. 1608 (XV) at the 994th plenary meeting of 21 April 1961. Significantly, LRC voted against, only subsequently to annex Southern Cameroons in defiance of the UN Resolution to the contrary.
Failing to grant unconditional independence to British Cameroons was clearly an infringement of Art 3 and 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement and the dismembering of the Trust Territory, while permissible for the Trustee’s administrative convenience, was a violation of the Agreement which defined Northern and Southern British Cameroons as One entity that was to be led to independence.
Besides, as both Nigeria and LRC were already members of the UN in 1960, they were bound by Article 102 (1) and (2) of the UN Charter, which states thus:
(1) Every Treaty and every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall, as soon as possible, be registered with the secretariat and published by it.”
(2) No party to any such treaty or international agreement, which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
What is more, UN Resolution 1608(XV) passed at the 994th Plenary Session of 21 April 1961 had this to say: “4. Decides that, the plebiscites having been taken separately with differing results, the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946 concerning the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration shall be terminated, in accordance with Article 76(b) of the Charter of the United Nations and in agreement with the Administering Authority in the following manner:
“(a). With respect to the Northern Cameroons, on 1 June 1961, upon its joining the Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria:
“(b) With respect to the Southern Cameroons, on 1 October 1961, upon its joining the Republic of Cameroun; “5. Invites the Administering Authority, the Government of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to initiate urgent discussions with a view to finalising, before 1 October 1961, the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned will be implemented.”
Because there are no union treaties in the UN Secretariat that purport to join either British Northern Cameroons to Nigeria, or British Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun, the exercise of jurisdiction by either Nigeria or LRC over portions of the British Trust Territory of Cameroons would appear patently illegitimate and contrary to international law. It is for the UN to correct this anomaly before the quest for liberty and independence by the citizens of the UN Trust territory of British Cameroons erupts into a breach of international peace.
Although UN Resolution 1608 terminated the British Trust over Southern Cameroons as from 1 October 1961, that did not by itself grant independence to the territory. Power had to be formally surrendered by Britain, the Administering Authority, to a Southern Cameroons Government. Instead, power was awarded to LRC whose so-called Federal Constitution was never debated or approved by the Southern Cameroons legislature, and was promulgated into law on 1st September 1961, while Southern Cameroons was still a British trust territory. That Federal Constitution of LRC took effect as from 1 October 1961, the day the British Trust over Southern Cameroons ended. Power was handed to President Ahidjo who, acting under the smokescreen of a “Federal Government of Cameroon,” simply annexed the British Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons which had not attained independence.
This “federal” LRC constitution was merely a change of name by the independent state of La Republique du Cameroun, which just enlarged its (LRC) belly to swallow Southern Cameroons that had not attained independence. A much clearer example of big fish swallowing small fish is difficult to comprehend. The small fish would have been swallowed into the belly of the big fish in the following political equation:
Big fish (A) + Small fish (B) = Big fish (A) , (LRC swallows Southern Cameroons; the result = LRC).
That is how, it would seem, Southern Cameroons ended up becoming two provinces inside the “belly” of the State of LRC. It is believed that ever since LRC attained independence on 1st January 1960, it has never changed its name in UN records to reflect these in-house changes of name over the years, viz United Federal or simply Federal. Thus the borders of the UN registered state of LRC inherited from the French at independence on 1st January 1960, when Southern Cameroons was not part of that state, remain inviolate. That is why, at the opportune time, LRC reverted to its original name at birth, viz. La Republique du Cameroun, after having successfully annexed the non-independent state of Southern Cameroons, which it had reduced to two of its ten provinces.
In the past, I ventured the recommendation to President Paul Biya to initiate Urgent discussion with responsible political leaders of Southern Cameroons. I genuinely believe that if he had heeded this plea with goodwill, there was the possibility of correcting this master-servant illicit co-habitation that has lasted 46 years, by re-negotiating an acceptable relationship with Southern Cameroons based on the terms agreed to by the founding fathers in 1961. Time May No Longer Be On His Side
Correct The Equation Now!
In the light of current trends in the country, I am driven to the conclusion that in order to avert looming but unnecessary social turmoil, the United Nations should step in soon to correct this political equation that is ominously wrong. The British declassified documents (DD) reveal the role played by Her Majesty’s Government in denying independence to the British Trust Territory of Cameroons, and the revelations, extracts of which appear below, cast a rather dim shadow on Her Majesty’s Government policy at the time.
Extracts from DD
“In particular we must be very careful about independence and temporary sovereignty lest N. Cameroon is likely influenced not to join Nigeria. This I believe is the overriding consideration. So we must be more or less tough with Foncha that joining his Cameroun Republic does not allow sovereignty for a term (sic) of years and then a Federation.”
“Any idea of a prolonged period of continued Trusteeship or of separate independent existence of the Southern Cameroons must be ruled out. This should be made clear at an early date to Foncha.” “First of all, I take it that objections hitherto seen to establishment of a separate Southern Cameroons State remain as strong as ever. …I am therefore assuming in what follows that our policy remains strongly against such a solution.
“If Southern Cameroons political parties did combine to take action envisaged in paragraph 2 of telegram under reference, this would place us in a very embarrassing position. With support of moderate Afro-Asians and others, we have always argued that separate independence would produce an entirely unviable State. We have supported a unanimous resolution prescribing plebiscite which involves choice between Nigeria and Cameroun Republic.”
“I think it is important that we should not allow this matter to slide, as may happen if we are not sufficiently firm with Foncha – and perhaps also with Field – about the “third question” movement. I believe a firm attitude on this now may save us a great deal of trouble later and I think that H.M.G’s position should be made abundantly clear to Foncha in an effort to scotch tendencies towards the third question.”
“Can one argue that the terms of the question “Do you wish to attain independence by joining the Republic?” allow for an interim period during which the Southern Cameroons will virtually have its own separate and independent existence while the terms of reunification with the Republic are being worked out? The words “by joining the Republic” taken literally appear to rule this out. But it may be that Foncha will seek to argue that if his solution, having been agreed to by Ahidjo, is not opposed by the U.K., the U.N. may be induced to wear it. There would be the better grounds for this if Endeley were prepared also to agree to this interpretation of the question. We do not like all this at all. But we like the alternatives even less. To go for complete independence or to seek to insert a third choice in the plebiscite would create major difficulties.”
“What would worry me is if a sequel to the Southern Cameroons try for independence was that the Northern Cameroons went the same way. That would really, I think, upset our relationship with Nigeria as a whole and for a long time to come, and that is something, which we must at all costs avoid. The Southern Cameroons and its inhabitants are undoubtedly expendable in relation to this.”
Conclusion
If, as all the evidence seems to point out, the Trust Territory of British Cameroons did not attain independence in the true sense of the word as it was entitled to under the Trusteeship Agreement, but was split into two and portions ceded to neighbouring independent states of Nigeria or LRC, this is a grave problem in a world which has longsince condemned colonisation in all its facets. It is my view that a dependent country aspiring to attain independence should not be caged or cajoled into independence “by joining” an already independent state, unless the dependent state first attains independence, before voluntarily deciding to join another state. One does not emancipate a slave by telling the slave “you are emancipated on condition that you agree to serve my brother in the same capacity.” It would be for the slave to decide its own future, after first obtaining its total freedom or emancipation.
It is understood that sometime ago, the University of Buea hosted a seminar to discuss the Anglophone Problem. My considered opinion is that the unsolved Anglophone Problem should again be openly debated at a Seminar at the University of Buea, in the light of all available evidence. Eminent Professors of Law, Political and Social Scientists, as well as leading jurists, should be invited to make presentations, for oftentimes some people who may not have the advantage of history have been known to parrot-recite the stock slogan of the indivisibility of the Republic, without the privilege of having first mastered all the relevant facts.
Peace Profound, and there is absolutely no necessity for civil strife or war.
By Mola Njoh Litumbe Senior Citizen, Politician & Opinion Leader
(*Cry, the Beloved Country, indeed, thanks to Alan Paton for having coined the title for his book)
