• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
SCNCThe Emergency SCNC By Vincent FEKOOne of the most popular and powerful political parties in Nigeria in the` 50s wasthe NCNC, National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, the British Cameroons tobe precise. The British Cameroons was an internationally recognized geographicalcircumscription, with a surface area of 86214sq km, sandwiched, as it were,between Nigeria and the former French Cameroun.When Nigeria attained independenceon October 1, 1960, the Cameroons component was dropped and NCNC was renamed theNational Council of Nigerian Citizens. Acknowledging, this was in keeping with theinternational Law maxim of uti possedetis juris that ordains that: theinternational boundaries or borders of a country become fixed, unchangeable orfrozen with effect from its declaration of independence.The principle was reaffirmed by resolution AGH/ Res16 (1) of the OAU (AU) heads ofstate Cairo Summit of July1964. The Resolution states that colonial boundariesinherited at independence remain “tangible immutable and inviolable.” utipossedetis juris and Res. AGH/ Res.16 (1) did not apply to La Republique duCameroun any less than they applied to Nigeria when the French Cameroun acceded toindependence as La Republique du Cameroun, earlier on 1st January 1960.Both Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun, as accredited members of the AU havepledged to uphold the Charter of the AU in which is enshrined, like in the charterof the United Nations, the right to self-determination of a people under foreignoccupation and domination. Besides, Nigeria could not have let go the BritishCameroons that, in the first place was never an integral part of Nigeria, only toturn around 8 months later to acquire part of the territory. That would be likeoverturning the uti possedetis juris it had law-abidingly respected atindependence. It would be comparable to the unwitting acquisition of a Trojanhorse. That historical snapshot is intended to prepare the reader’s mind for abetter understanding and appreciation of the paper’s title: The Emergent SCNC, andthe analysis that follow.Picture: EML Endeley, First PM of Southern CameroonsThe pioneer SCNC, the Southern Cameroons National Council, stands for the self-determination of the former Southern Cameroons, an integral part of the formerBritish Cameroons. Self-determination, of course, is a later development due to LaRepublique du Cameroun government’s intransigence for failing to heed to the AllAnglophone Conference (AAC) call for constitutional reforms. The proponents of theSCNC, the AAC convenors and their disciples initially stood for a return to theFederation of two-equal- in status Federated states of West Cameroon and EastCameroun, English and French, which president Ahidjo and his successor hadsuccessively replaced with the United Republic in 1972 and La Republique duCameroun in 1984. The AAC convenors and the rest of us, who supported them at thetime, were not as sure as we are today, that the Federation for which we nursed somuch nostalgia, was a phantom Federation, a colonial construct and a euphemism forLa Republique du Cameroun.The emergent SCNC, the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons Workshop, thebrainchild of Prof. Martin Chia Ateh and other frontline proponents among whomare the eminent senior citizen and politician and retird. Chartered AccountantMola Njoh Litumbe and Dr Amos Gabuir; stands for the self-determination of theformer British Cameroons which, pending its independence, according to Prof. Ateh,has reverted to the United Nations (UN) territory of Cameroons with the SecretaryGeneral of the UN as the head.While slight differences may exist between the two schools, one intrinsicdifference is worthy of note. Whereas the pioneer school wants the restoration ofthe independence of an integral part, the emergent school wants independencegranted to the whole UN territory as independence “by joining” was predicated on a
 
Federal union that neither legally nor legitimately ever was.Moreover, to ask for independence for the part rather than the whole would seem tobe an endorsement of the illegal and criminal partitioning and subsequent disposalof the territory by the British in the most untidy and despicable fashion inliving memory.We have now entered the crucial stage of the struggle and there is need now morethan ever before, to find a common ground. Fighting in dispersed ranks withincoherent objectives will render us vulnerable to detractors and enemies. Anyarticle of faith that we ever held that has collapsed under careful examinationthrough the mirror of international Law and the Convention on the Law of Treatiesshould be discarded. For example, the argument that Southern Cameroons achievedindependence on the1st October 1961 by joining La Republique du Cameroun has beendemolished by International Law and the Convention on the Law of Treaties. Tocontinue to insist on the point regardless of the rebuttal simply because a few ofus had, without thorough research held this view, is to mislead our people, sendwrong and confusing signals to the international community, and play into thehands of our detractors and enemies who are lying in wait to do their worst. Forreasons of vested interest, Great Britain was bent on not letting the BritishCameroons achieve independence under Art. 76(b) of the Charter of the UnitedNations.Not even the diplomatic bullet of a Metternich would have turned the tables.That is as bad as the story is. The Hansard tells it like it is.With the knowledge we have today about what happened to the British Cameroons, inretrospect, was the clamour for dialogue with La Republique du Cameroun theappropriate thing to do? Some might say, yes, the weight of foreign occupation anddomination had become intolerable and the struggle for freedom had to start fromsomewhere. Nevertheless, the illegal and criminal partitioning of our territoryand sharing it as spoils (of war) between Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun,has legally and legitimately returned the territory to the United Nations. TheSecretary General of the UN is now the head of the territory. Can any liberationmovement in the former British Cameroons still pretend to have the locus standi toengage in any meaningful dialogue with the occupiers, either severally or jointly?If yes, for what product? Moreover, this raises yet another crucial question: Isit thinkable for slaves and slave masters to negotiate for freedom and liberty ofthe slaves? On the other hand, to put it much milder and palatable: is it normalfor a minor and an adult to contract?It is now clear that the question of self-determination of the people of the UNterritory of the Cameroons is a matter for the United Nations to resolve.Southern Cameroonians have no quarrel with La Republique du Cameroun. They have aproblem with the UN. Any such attempt would amount to “chopping Soya” like ourother well-known brothers and sisters. Even if the government of La Republique duCameroun heeded to the call of the pioneer SCNC for constitutional reforms, in thelight of recent research, any Constitution jointly produced by the SCNC and LaRepublique would have been illegal and unacceptable on at least the followingthree counts:From the illegal and criminal partitioning of the Cameroons Britain held in trustand ceding a part to Nigeria (1st. June 1961) and the other to La Republique duCameroun (1st. October 1961), the Cameroons had, in international Law, reverted toa UN territory with the UN having exclusive jurisdiction over the territory,The SCNC has been representing a non-independent territory that is occupied by LaRepublique du Cameroun, an independent state with vested interest in the destinyof Southern Cameroons. The status of the SCNC has been like that of a minor andthat of La Republique an adult. In Law, no valid contract can be made between aminor and an adult and worse still, when the adult is a criminal.
 
3) Trespassers and property owners do not negotiate. Trespassers arecriminals and are to be prosecuted and flushed out.It is unfortunate that the regime continues to behave as if they are oblivious ofthese issues, by hoodwinking the international community into thinking that LaRepublique du Cameroun is a one and indivisible entity. Of course, the LaRepublique du Cameroun that achieved independence on 1st January 1960 and becamean accredited member of the United Nations on September 20, 1960, is one andindivisible. No one contests that. What the regime has never told theinternational community and will never, is how they overturned uti possedetisjuris and the 1964 Cairo Summit’s undertaking to bring in Southern Cameroons as anintegral part of their one and indivisible RepubliqueAll the frantic but futile manoeuvres of the regime to justify their occupation ofSouthern Cameroons can only provide impeachable evidence of their unwarrantedintrusion and balkanization of Southern Cameroons. Various amendments to theirRepublican Constitution, calling them the Constitution of La Republique Federaledu Cameroun (1961), la Constitution de la Republique Unie du Cameroun (1972), andback to La Constitution de la Republique du Cameroun (1996), show that LaRepublique du Cameroun is a rapacious land shark.The fragmentation of the former British Cameroons and the subtle assimilation ofits peoples by the occupying powers to destroy their history, culture and identityare bound to fail. This is because according to the UN Charter and InternationalLaw, the territory has become a UN territory, and secondly because itsinternational borders are delimited and therefore immutable and inviolable in muchthe same way as those of the occupiers.The participation of citizens of the UN territory in the politics of the occupiersis inconsequential because those elections can never compromise the nationalityand citizenship of the electorate and the elected. It is common knowledge thatpolitical behaviour of people under foreign domination is dictated by forcemajeure. Moreover, these elections have always been unfair, non-transparent andheavily rigged. The various presidential elections and the most recent legislativeand municipal twin elections prove the point. The occupiers themselves regardthose elections as a propaganda gimmick. It is an unimpeachable fact that no onein the dominated class can ever be allowed to aspire to the highest office of theland, or to participate in any meaningful decision making process. That would belike bringing the slave to the master’s table or asking “Zeus to share his kingdomwith men. The case of La Republique du Cameroun’s 1992 presidential election inwhich the Southern Cameroonian frontline opposition leader’s landslide victorywas overturned, provides a classical example.With the ruling party’slatest fraudulent parliamentary majority, government is once again contemplatingon frustrating the SCNC struggle for self-determination by carrying out sweepingconstitutional and administrative reforms in disregard of the litigationinstituted against the regime at the African Commission on Human and peoplesRights (ACHPR) and the United Nations (UN).Already a Commission has been set up to work on new state symbols, for example,two stars national flag et al, in preparation for the 50th anniversary of LaRepublique du Cameroun’s independence on 1st January 2010.The regime celebrated the 30th independence anniversary on 1st January 1990, andissued commemorative postage stamps with the map of La Republique du Cameroun atindependence on 1st January 1960, in conformity with uti possedetis juris and the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...