By Duke BAA CHINJAP
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Get books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your continuing engagement with the Southern Cameroons question and the ongoing conflict on the territory. My purpose is not to commend your recent reflections on October 1, but to challenge what I consider a fundamental historical and conceptual error at the heart of them: the repeated characterization of what occurred in 1961 as the “reunification” of two countries.
As academics and professionals in fields where words, context, chronology and legal meaning matter, you both understand that terminology is not incidental. It shapes interpretation. It influences public memory. And, in matters of statehood, sovereignty and constitutional history, it can determine how an entire political question is framed.
Something cannot be reunited unless it was previously united and later separated. That is the simple chronological proposition at the center of this letter. Before one can speak of the “reunification” of Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun in 1961, one must first demonstrate that the two had previously existed together as a single sovereign political entity, had subsequently separated, and were then reunited. That historical burden has not been met. Indeed, the contradiction becomes even more obvious when one remembers that eleven years after the supposed “reunification” of 1961, Cameroon carried out another constitutional transformation in 1972 that was officially described as unification. How could a state supposedly “reunited” in 1961 need to be “unified” in 1972? That question should trouble every historian and constitutional lawyer who wishes to treat these terms seriously.
WHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 1, 1961?
October 1 occupies a unique place in Southern Cameroons history. It marked the end of British trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons and the commencement of a new political relationship with the already independent Republic of Cameroun. The central historical question is therefore not whether October 1 was important. It unquestionably was. The question is what precisely happened on that date and what legal and political terminology best describes it. The Southern Cameroons had been administered separately from the French-administered territory that became the Republic of Cameroun. The two territories passed through distinct colonial and trusteeship systems and developed different administrative, educational, legal and political traditions.
What was contemplated in 1961 was the creation of a new constitutional relationship between two territories that had not previously existed together as a single sovereign state. That is why the language of “reunification” requires much greater scrutiny. If there was a lawful union, where is the final treaty of union? Where is the document signed by the authorized representatives of both sides setting out the binding terms of that union? Where is the parliamentary ratification by the Southern Cameroons legislature? Where is the international instrument defining the legal status of the new political entity? These are not rhetorical details. They go to the heart of the constitutional and international status of the arrangement. If such documents exist, they should be produced and examined.
OCTOBER 1 IS MORE THAN A HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE
Barrister Nkongho Felix Agbor Balla, you recently wrote of October 1 as a date that evokes memories of history, dignity and belonging. Those sentiments are understandable. But for many Southern Cameroonians today, October 1 evokes considerably more than memory. It represents decades of grievances involving political representation, institutional erosion, economic marginalization, educational and legal disputes, violence, displacement and the collapse of confidence in the post-1961 constitutional arrangement. October 1 has therefore ceased to be merely an academic date.
It has become a living political symbol. It represents an unresolved argument about sovereignty, identity and the political future of Southern Cameroons. That reality cannot be reduced to a debate over how prominently October 1 should appear in national textbooks. For many Southern Cameroonians, the date is not simply part of history. It remains part of the present.
TO PROF. WILLIBROAD DZE-NGWA
Professor Dze-Ngwa, your October 1 reflection was titled: “OCTOBER 1st 1961: THE DAY THAT RE-MADE CAMEROON.” That title itself raises important historical questions. What exactly was being “re-made”? For something to be remade, one normally assumes that it previously existed in the form being referenced. Did a sovereign nation-state comprising the territories later known as the Republic of Cameroun and Southern Cameroons exist before 1960–1961?
If so, when? Under what constitution? With what government? With what internationally recognized sovereignty?
If no such sovereign state existed, then the prefix “re-” becomes historically problematic. You also argued that October 1 deserves a more prominent place in Cameroon’s historical education and public memory. But the Southern Cameroons question today is not merely about historical recognition. It is about political status. For many Southern Cameroonians, October 1 is important not because it deserves greater prominence in a curriculum but because it symbolizes what they consider an unresolved failure of the constitutional arrangement established after British trusteeship ended. Any discussion of October 1 must therefore confront the political consequences of what followed.
THE 1961 FEDERAL ARRANGEMENT AND 1972
Another matter requires attention. The federal constitutional structure established after 1961 was later abolished in 1972 and replaced by a unitary state. That transformation fundamentally altered the constitutional framework under which Southern Cameroons had entered the relationship. Whatever one’s interpretation of the constitutional legality of that process, it is impossible to discuss the Southern Cameroons question seriously without examining the consequences of the 1972 referendum and the subsequent centralization of the state.
The federal arrangement had provided Southern Cameroons with a distinct institutional identity within the federation. Once that structure disappeared, so too did many of the constitutional safeguards upon which the relationship had originally rested. That is one reason why appeals today for a return to federalism provoke such profound disagreement. Some believe federation remains the most practical solution. Others believe the events since 1961 demonstrate that no internal constitutional arrangement can adequately protect Southern Cameroons. That disagreement is real and should be confronted openly.
TO BARR. NKONGHO FELIX AGBOR BALLA
Barrister Agbor Balla, your October 1 reflection emphasized nonviolence, meaningful dialogue and a federal solution. You wrote: “Throughout my advocacy, I have remained committed to non-violence, meaningful dialogue and a federal solution.” That is a clear political position. But it also raises a historical question about the evolution of your own advocacy and the broader movement.
During the early stages of the 2016–2017 crisis, federation was widely discussed as a potential remedy. But the political landscape subsequently changed. As repression intensified and trust collapsed, a significant portion of the movement shifted from federation toward outright independence. Whether one agrees with that transformation or not, it cannot be ignored. The important question therefore becomes: Can an advocate still claim to represent the aspirations of the population if the political objective he promotes differs materially from that now demanded by a substantial portion of that population? That is the democratic question.
It is not enough to call for dialogue.
One must also be clear about the objective of that dialogue. Dialogue toward federation? Dialogue toward decentralization? Dialogue toward autonomy? Or dialogue toward independence? Those destinations are not interchangeable.
THE VIOLENCE QUESTION
The conflict has produced immense suffering.
Civilians have been killed. Villages have been destroyed. Families have been displaced. People have been imprisoned. Armed groups have committed abuses. State forces have also faced serious allegations of violations. Any credible discussion of the conflict must recognize the suffering of civilians rather than reduce the crisis to slogans. At the same time, one must distinguish between advocating peaceful political action and denying the historical circumstances under which armed resistance emerged.
The Southern Cameroons crisis did not begin as an armed conflict. It began with protests led by lawyers, teachers and civil society organizations.
The subsequent militarization of the conflict arose after the political confrontation deteriorated dramatically. That chronology matters.
DEBUNKING THE “REUNIFICATION” CLAIM
Let us return to the central historical argument.
For two sovereign political entities to reunite, they must logically have existed previously as a single political entity. Where is the evidence that such a sovereign Cameroon existed before the period of European colonial partition? Prior to German colonial rule, the territories contained numerous kingdoms, chiefdoms and communities. They did not constitute one modern sovereign nation-state called Cameroon.
Under German colonial rule, Kamerun existed as a colonial possession. But a colony is not the same thing as an independent sovereign nation-state.
After Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the territory was partitioned between Britain and France under the League of Nations mandate system. Those separate territories later became United Nations Trust Territories. From that point onward, the British and French administered them separately. They developed separately.
They acquired different legal and administrative traditions. And they moved toward self-government through different political processes. Against that background, the use of the word “reunification” in 1961 requires careful qualification.
WHAT IS A NATION-STATE?
A nation-state is ordinarily understood as a sovereign political state possessing defined territory, governmental institutions and international personality. So the question is straightforward: When, prior to 1961, did a sovereign country exist that incorporated the territories of both Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun under one sovereign government? If one argues that German Kamerun provides the answer, then another distinction must immediately be made.
German Kamerun was a colonial territory governed by Germany. It was not an independent Cameroonian nation-state whose sovereign government later divided into two independent countries. This distinction is crucial. The partition of a colony between imperial powers is not equivalent to the breakup of an independent state. Therefore, comparing Cameroon directly with the reunification of Germany is historically problematic.
THE GERMANY COMPARISON
Germany existed as a sovereign state before its postwar division. After the Second World War, Germany was divided into two states: the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. Both ultimately existed as internationally recognized political entities.
Their eventual reunification in 1990 therefore involved the restoration of a previously unified sovereign national entity. That is why the terminology of German reunification is historically coherent.
The Cameroon case is different. There was no sovereign Cameroonian nation-state before German colonial rule. German Kamerun was a colony. Following Germany’s defeat, that colony was partitioned. The British and French territories that emerged thereafter developed separately. Thus, the burden remains on advocates of the term “reunification” to explain precisely what sovereign state was supposedly being reconstituted in 1961.
QUESTIONS FOR PROF. DZE-NGWA AND BARR. AGBOR BALLA
I therefore respectfully place the following questions before you:
When did Cameroon first exist as a sovereign nation-state prior to 1961?
What was the name of that sovereign state?
Under what constitution did it operate?
Who governed it?
Where was its political capital?
When and by what legal act did it cease to exist?
Into what sovereign successor states did it divide?
What internationally recognized governments represented those successor states?
If 1961 constituted “reunification,” why was the constitutional transformation of 1972 subsequently described as “unification”?
These are historical questions. They should have historical answers.
UNIFICATION BEFORE REUNIFICATION
Chronology matters. Ordinarily, unification precedes reunification. A thing must first be united before it can later be reunited. That is why the terminology surrounding 1961 should not be accepted merely because it became politically conventional. Words can normalize assumptions. But repetition does not transform a historically questionable description into an incontrovertible fact. The more precise question is whether 1961 constituted the creation of a new federation, a constitutional union, an incomplete union, or—as critics argue—an arrangement that ultimately facilitated the absorption of Southern Cameroons into the Republic of Cameroun. That debate should be conducted with evidence.
FROM GERMAN KAMERUN TO THE TRUST TERRITORIES
The historical sequence is comparatively clear.
German Kamerun ceased to exist as a German colonial possession after the First World War.
The territory was partitioned between France and Britain. The League of Nations subsequently placed the respective territories under mandates.
After the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations, they became Trust Territories. From that point onward, the French and British territories followed separate administrative and political trajectories.
The French-administered territory became the Republic of Cameroun in 1960. The Southern Cameroons remained under British trusteeship until 1961. Any political relationship established thereafter was therefore a relationship between territories that had undergone separate constitutional evolution. Calling that relationship “reunification” may have served a political narrative. But historians should still ask whether the term accurately describes the legal and political reality.
THE QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
This brings us to the central problem. If the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroun had never previously existed together as one sovereign nation-state, then describing their 1961 relationship as “reunification” risks importing into history a claim that did not exist in constitutional reality. It can imply that Southern Cameroons was merely a detached portion of another state returning to its natural political home. That interpretation has profound consequences. For Southern Cameroonians who regard their territory as having entered a new political arrangement in 1961 as a distinct entity, the terminology is therefore not academic. It concerns sovereignty itself.
HISTORY, LAW AND INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Professors, lawyers and public intellectuals carry a particular responsibility during political crises.
Their responsibility is not to tell people what they want to hear. Nor is it to repeat inherited terminology without interrogation. It is to examine evidence. To clarify concepts. To separate political narratives from demonstrable historical facts. And to acknowledge uncertainty where the historical or legal record remains contested. Peace cannot be built by obscuring history. Nor can durable reconciliation emerge from terminology that one side regards as fundamentally misleading. Whether one favors independence, federation, autonomy or another constitutional settlement, serious scholarship requires confronting the historical record honestly.
CONCLUSION: WHAT SHOULD OCTOBER 1 MEAN?
October 1 should not be reduced to a ceremonial date. Nor should it be imprisoned inside a textbook. It represents the moment at which British trusteeship over Southern Cameroons ended and a profoundly consequential political relationship began. That relationship has shaped generations. It has produced constitutional disputes, political grievances, conflict and competing claims about sovereignty. The task of historians and lawyers is therefore not simply to preserve comfortable terminology. It is to interrogate it. If “reunification” accurately describes what happened in 1961, demonstrate the prior sovereign union that was restored. If it does not, then intellectual honesty requires a more precise term. History is not strengthened by repetition. It is strengthened by evidence.
And the people of Southern Cameroons deserve nothing less.
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Buy books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon
sincerely Duke BAA CHINJAP
