UN Silence on Alleged Bribery: Proof of Complicity?

Amina Mohammed, is suggested turned down a financial packge. But as Geneva raises alarms while New York remains silent, doubts grow. If the inducement was refused, why is there no clear denial? And if it was not refused, then the silence is complicity.

By The Independentist editorial Desk

When UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed visited Yaoundé earlier this year, Paul Biya once again promised what he has promised for decades: “free and fair elections.” At the same time, reports emerged that his envoy Félix Mbayuh had carried a “financial inducement” to New York. At first, whispers suggested Amina Mohammed turned it away. But as Geneva raises alarms while New York remains silent, doubts grow. If the inducement was refused, why is there no clear denial? And if it was not refused, then the silence is complicity.

A Familiar Script of Lies

This is not the first time Biya has sold false assurances to international institutions.

In the early 1990s, when multiparty politics was reintroduced after the Bamenda martyrs fell in Liberty Square, Biya promised openness. Instead, opposition was crushed, and the SDF’s victory in 1992 was stolen.

In 2004, Biya assured observers that reforms would strengthen democracy. Yet opposition figures were harassed, and elections were declared “orderly” only because international monitors looked the other way.

During the Ambazonian conflict, Biya repeatedly told the UN he was pursuing “dialogue.” What followed was massacres, the burning of villages, and waves of refugees. The so-called “Major National Dialogue” of 2019 was another smokescreen, where the outcome was pre-written before delegates arrived.

Each time, the UN and international partners accepted his word, only to watch as his regime doubled down on repression.

Biya’s promises are not commitments. They are currency — political bribes for international consumption.

Geneva Speaks, New York Stays Silent

This week, the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva warned of restrictions on opposition, bans on rallies, and manipulated voter lists. But in New York, where António Guterres and Amina Mohammed preside, silence reigns. Why? Because Geneva is technical; New York is political. Geneva can bark; New York is muzzled by France’s protection and Cameroon’s dirty money.

The Murky Transactions

The allegations around Mbayuh’s inducement cannot simply be brushed aside. If no money was offered, why has the Secretariat not said so openly? If it was offered and refused, why not clear the air? By refusing to speak, the UN feeds the perception that bribery is routine, that silence can be bought, and that Biya has once again gamed the system. Everyone knows the murky way Cameroon operates: cash payments, contracts for friends, gifts in hotel rooms, envelopes delivered in the shadows. To think the UN is immune is naïve.

Complicity by Silence

This silence is not diplomacy. It is complicity. The UN Secretariat in New York cannot hide behind Geneva’s words while refusing to confront allegations of bribery in its own halls. Each time Biya deceives international organizations and is allowed to get away with it, he grows bolder, while the UN loses credibility.

For Ambazonians, the conclusion is unmistakable: our future cannot depend on institutions compromised by France’s shield and Biya’s money. Geneva’s words are hollow if New York’s silence is bought. Only resistance, unity, and sovereignty can secure our destiny.

The Independentist editorial Desk