Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3. The facts of the matter are that the country now known as La Republique du
Cameroun graduated from the status of a French Administered UN Trust Territory that
was granted independence on 1st January 1960 with a seat at the UN in September of the
same year. The International convention of the African Union enjoins emerging African
states to respect the colonial boundaries inherited at independence.
That being the case, the boundaries of La Republique du Cameroun which attained
independence on 1st January 1960 are clearly defined under international law, and cannot
include the territory known as British Southern Cameroons which, at the material time of
La Republique du Cameroon’s independence, was still a UN trust territory administered
by Great Britain. For a charge of secession to succeed therefore, the prosecution has to
establish that at some time subsequent to 1st January 1960, Southern Cameroons got
legally incorporated as an integral part of La Republique du Cameroun.
1
either Nigeria or La Republique du Cameroun, both of which had attained independence
in the previous year.
7. In April 1961, by Res. 1608, the UN had stipulated that before the British trust over
Southern Cameroons was to end on 1st October 1961, there was to be a tripartite
conference comprising Britain as the Administering Authority, the Government of
Southern Cameroons, and the Government of La Republique du Cameroun, to draw up a
Treaty of the Union embodying the agreed and declared terms and understandings for the
joining of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun. Such a union treaty was
to be the "marriage certificate" for the union and a copy had to be mandatorily filed at the
2
UN Secretariat to be published by it. Failure to comply rendered the "union" not a
marriage, but concubinage, and parties are free to disengage when they please without
any formality.
9. On the basis of the foregoing, it is difficult to see how a charge of secession can be
sustained before an impartial judicial tribunal. Indeed what Professor Ateh is saying is
that he was born in Njinikom, Bamenda, on 23rd August 1953 as a citizen of the Trust
Territory of British Cameroons which was entitled to independence as prescribed by UN
Charter, particularly Art. 76b. Great Britain undertook to lead the territory to unfettered
independence when it assumed the role of Administering Authority. Professor Ateh, as a
beneficiary of the UK Trust has not seen his independence, and is merely asserting the
right to his country's independence guaranteed by virtue of UN Art. 76b as fortified by
UN Res. 1608, in the absence of a Union Treaty joining his country (British Cameroons)
to a foreign country (La Republique du Cameroun). The latter has illegally annexed and
colonized his own country, so the charge of secession must fail since Southern
Cameroons has never, legally, been part of La Republique du Cameroun.
10. The question as to whether Courts in Cameroon are competent to try a matter on Self-
determination of the people of Southern Cameroons came up before the African
Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights in Banjul in Communication 266/2003, pitting
Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al versus La Republique du Cameroon. In the Commission’s
decision Ref. ACHPR/COMM/FA dated 15th June 2004 conveying the Admissibility of
the Communication, the Commission had this to say:
“49. With respect to Art 56(5) which relates to exhaustion of local remedies, the
Complainants submit that there are no local remedies to exhaust in respect of the claim
for self-determination because this is a matter for an international forum and not a
3
domestic one. The reason being that the variant of self-determination sought in this
communication is a request for determination as to whether or not the “union” of La
Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons was effected in accordance with UN
Resolutions, International Treaty obligations and indeed international law. This is clearly
not a matter that can be determined by a domestic court.”
“50. The Respondent State concedes that no legal remedies exist with respect to the
claim for self-determination………..”
12. With regard to the second charge of attempting to hold a public meeting, it is clear
from the recorded evidence before the Examining Magistrate that what the accused did
was to invite 20 people to attend a workshop, which workshop never held. How twenty
invited persons known to the accused could be construed to constitute a "public meeting"
for which prior declaration had to be filed with the administrative authorities, is a
transparent red herring and a flawed interpretation of domestic law, and has been
introduced to justify the commital of someone of Professor Ateh's standing to languish in
a prison den for common criminals. The Court should be urged to acquit and discharge
the accused persons.
13. The way forward is for La Republique du Cameroun and Nigeria to refer the
questions to the International Court of Justice as to whether or not, pursuant to the UN
Charter and Resolutions, they could claim governance over portions of the former
territory of British Cameroons. In this regard, Nigeria already has a compelling Tomlin
ORDER issued in March 2002 by the Hon. Justice R.N. Ukeje, Chief Judge of the
Federal High Court in Abuja, to prosecute this matter before the International Court of
Justice. This would resolve the issues once and for all, and so avoid unnecessary turmoil
in the Central African sub-region.
14. The outcome of the current proceedings in Bamenda is being monitored around the
world, and may well turn out to serve the best interests of Southern Cameroons now
trying to rediscover its lost identity. Pray God that He gives us men and women of
integrity and courage in our Judiciary, but not boys and girls who would allow their
“hands to be tied.”
Peace Profound!
================
4
Done on
American Independence Day 2007.