NKONDA TITUS, TAMBE TIKU AND THE YAOUNDÉ CONNECTION: IS LRC USING ITS OWN COLLABORATORS TO TARNISH THE AMBAZONIA STRUGGLE?

Ambazonia is a people’s struggle. It is not the private property of Nkonda Titus, Tambe Tiku, colonial officials, political personalities or any armed faction. Its credibility rests with the people, its historical claims, its leadership and its commitment to justice. The people deserve the truth. Victims deserve justice. Those responsible for criminal violence must face accountability, regardless of their allegiance.

By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief, The Independentist News

As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases

Buy your copies of books on the Ambazonian revolution By Martin Mungwa from Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Martin+mungwa&crid=OGWVBDZ2JM72&sprefix=martin+mungwa%2Caps%2C1437&linkCode=ll2&tag=njokings-20&linkId=8939b7573cb30f2387ff7f17a3da1000&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

YAOUNDÉ – 24 October 2026 – The enemy does not always have to defeat a people’s struggle on the battlefield. Sometimes, it is enough to destroy that struggle’s credibility in the minds of the very people whose freedom it claims to represent. A kidnapping occurs. A civilian is murdered. A family is terrorised. Before an independent investigation establishes responsibility, accusations circulate, fingers point towards Ambazonia fighters, and another blow is delivered to the reputation of the independence movement.

But what happens when individuals accused of working with La République du Cameroun (LRC) begin turning against one another? What happens when people claiming access to the colonial establishment begin publicly exposing alleged activities within their own circles? Could these confrontations reveal something more disturbing than personal rivalries? Could they expose networks whose activities have contributed to the criminalisation of the Ambazonia struggle?

The latest controversy involving Nkonda Titus, associated with MKPD—My Kontri Pipo Dem—and Tambe Tiku raises precisely these questions. An audio recording circulating in connection with Nkonda Titus has generated allegations concerning the kidnapping of Southern Cameroonians and the possible involvement of LRC military personnel and individuals associated with the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programme.

The authenticity, complete contents and context of that recording have not been independently established for this commentary. Nevertheless, the accusations are sufficiently serious to warrant credible investigation rather than dismissal, political exploitation or premature conclusions. The issue is larger than Nkonda Titus. It is larger than Tambe Tiku.

It concerns whether the colonial authorities in Yaoundé, or persons operating within their orbit, have knowingly allowed criminal activity to be attributed to Ambazonia fighters as part of a broader struggle over public perception. If such conduct can be established, its implications would extend far beyond the reputations of the individuals now exchanging accusations.

NKONDA TITUS AND THE QUESTION OF YAOUNDÉ’S COLLABORATOR NETWORKS

Nkonda Titus has long been a controversial personality in discussions surrounding the Southern Cameroons conflict. Critics have accused him of maintaining relationships with government-linked networks and have pointed to statements and recordings attributed to him as grounds for concern. Other personalities, including Paddy Asanga, Clovis Naserie and Moja Moja, have also appeared in public controversies concerning alleged collaboration, information-sharing or relationships with state security structures. Allegations involving networks associated with colonial Minister Paul Atanga Nji have likewise circulated.

However, public accusations are not criminal convictions, and association with government officials does not, by itself, establish participation in unlawful conduct. The important question is whether independently verifiable evidence connects any particular individual or network to kidnappings, unlawful killings, intimidation or the deliberate misrepresentation of responsibility for crimes.

If the circulating Titus recording contains admissions, identifies perpetrators or describes particular operations, investigators should obtain the original material, authenticate it, establish its context and corroborate its claims against independent evidence. Witness testimony, communication records, financial transactions and other documentation could help determine whether the allegations have substance. The individuals named must also have an opportunity to respond. This is not merely a matter of protecting reputations. It is a matter of ensuring that victims receive justice and that the public is not manipulated by unverified claims.

For too long, the Southern Cameroons conflict has been accompanied by competing accusations, propaganda and narratives that often move faster than the evidence. Every kidnapping attributed to Ambazonia without adequate investigation risks unjustly condemning an entire movement. Equally, every atrocity committed by an armed separatist and denied solely because of political allegiance risks destroying the moral credibility of the independence struggle.

The standard must be consistent. Who committed the crime? Who ordered it? Who financed it? Who benefited? And what does the evidence establish? These questions, rather than political convenience, must determine responsibility.

HAS YAOUNDÉ FOUND A NEW FAVOURITE IN TAMBE TIKU?

The emergence of Tambe Tiku in the controversy introduces another dimension. Has Tiku become more influential within circles connected to Yaoundé? Is Nkonda Titus concerned about losing access, recognition or relevance? Could their apparent differences reflect competition within a network of individuals who claim relationships with the colonial establishment? These possibilities are politically significant, but they remain hypotheses rather than established facts.

Tiku has attracted criticism over his reported contacts with colonial Governor Okalia Bilai and his statements concerning communication with officials and Ambazonia fighters. His reported remarks surrounding colonial Prime Minister Joseph Dion Ngute’s visit to Buea also generated questions about the nature of the relationships he appeared to describe. Yet communication with opposing parties in a conflict is not inherently criminal.

Tiku has presented his contacts with separatist fighters as part of efforts to negotiate releases and reduce tensions. Such explanations deserve to be examined fairly. The relevant distinction is between legitimate mediation and the unlawful exploitation of information obtained through mediation. Did any individual use access to fighters or civilians to facilitate arrests, abductions or violence? Were confidential communications passed to armed actors for unlawful purposes? Did any relationship with colonial officials extend beyond public engagement into covert operations? These are questions that evidence—not political suspicion—must answer.

If Tiku and Titus possess information about government-linked operations, that information should be independently examined, not simply consumed as another episode of political theatre. The people of Southern Cameroons deserve to know whether these confrontations reflect ordinary personal disagreements or reveal something more consequential about the networks surrounding the conflict.

IS MONEY BEHIND THE FALLING-OUT?

Political relationships do not operate in an economic vacuum. Access to power can bring influence, public recognition, protection and sometimes financial advantages. Where individuals compete for official attention, disputes may emerge when one believes another has become more valuable to those in authority. Could such competition explain aspects of the current controversy? Could Titus believe that his influence is declining while Tiku’s is increasing? Could perceived differences in official attention help explain the accusations now entering public circulation?

These questions deserve examination, but they should not be mistaken for findings. No independently verified evidence has been presented in this commentary establishing that Tiku receives greater financial support from Yaoundé than Titus, that either individual has been paid to organise unlawful operations, or that a financial dispute caused the apparent falling-out. Such conclusions would require financial documentation, credible testimony or other corroboration.

The colonial government’s spending priorities and the public attention given to personalities such as Steve Fah and Makosso provide a broader political context for questions about influence and patronage. They do not, however, establish the existence of payments connected to kidnapping or other crimes. The distinction matters.

If government resources have been used to finance unlawful operations, the public deserves to know. If individuals have profited from exposing civilians to criminal violence, accountability must follow. But speculation about financial motives cannot substitute for proof. The purpose of investigation is to discover whether there is a financial trail, not to manufacture one.

WHEN ALLEGED COLLABORATORS FALL OUT, THE PUBLIC DESERVES THE TRUTH

History offers many examples of political relationships collapsing when interests change, alliances weaken or competing ambitions become irreconcilable. Under such circumstances, accusations between former associates can bring previously concealed information into public view. But disclosures produced by personal rivalries require particular caution. They may contain genuine evidence, selective truths, exaggerations or deliberate falsehoods.

That is why the controversy surrounding Titus and Tiku should be treated as a possible source of investigative leads rather than proof of a coordinated criminal network. If either individual possesses direct knowledge of unlawful kidnappings, killings or information-sharing operations, the evidence should be preserved and subjected to independent scrutiny.

If colonial military personnel or other government-linked actors are implicated, their conduct should be investigated without political protection. And if the evidence implicates separatist fighters or unrelated criminal groups, the same standard must apply. The essential point is that responsibility cannot be determined by uniform, political affiliation or the convenience of a prevailing narrative.

A civilian who has been abducted does not become less of a victim because the perpetrator belongs to a favoured political camp. A murdered Southern Cameroonian does not deserve less justice because the evidence contradicts the story promoted by one side of the conflict. The people have endured too much for their suffering to become currency in personal rivalries.

YAOUNDÉ MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFINE THE STRUGGLE THROUGH UNVERIFIED ACCUSATIONS

One of the most damaging consequences of prolonged conflict is the tendency to confuse the actions of individuals with the legitimacy of an entire political aspiration. The Ambazonia independence movement emerged from historical and constitutional grievances concerning the status, governance and political future of the former British Southern Cameroons.

Those grievances cannot be resolved merely by pointing to crimes committed or allegedly committed by persons claiming to act in the movement’s name. At the same time, the existence of those grievances cannot excuse abuses against civilians. The distinction is fundamental.

If a member of an Ambazonia armed group commits kidnapping, extortion or murder, that individual must be held accountable. If a colonial soldier, security operative or government-linked collaborator commits the same crime, that person must face the same demand for accountability. And if anyone deliberately attributes crimes to an innocent party in order to manipulate the population’s understanding of the war, such conduct must be exposed when supported by evidence. The people must reject the notion that political affiliation determines truth.

Yaoundé should not be permitted to define the independence struggle through accusations that have never been properly investigated. Neither should independence supporters assume that every allegation against Ambazonia fighters is necessarily fabricated. The struggle’s moral authority will ultimately depend not simply on the justice of its political claims, but also on its conduct, leadership, treatment of civilians and willingness to confront wrongdoing. A movement claiming to represent a people must remain answerable to those people.

THE PEOPLE’S STRUGGLE MUST REMAIN ON COURSE

The people of Southern Cameroons have endured years of bloodshed, displacement, economic destruction, broken families and profound uncertainty. Communities have been uprooted. Livelihoods have been shattered. Education has been disrupted. Families continue to live with the consequences of violence and insecurity. Against this background, the controversy involving Nkonda Titus and Tambe Tiku should not become another distraction from the central issues facing the population.Rather, it should renew the demand for credible evidence, accountability and civilian protection.

Supporters of the independence movement must distinguish between the legitimate political aspirations of a people and the conduct of every individual claiming to speak or fight on their behalf. The Ambazonia Self-Defence forces (ASA), like all armed actors, must be judged by their actual conduct, commitment to protecting civilians and willingness to address credible allegations of abuse. Likewise, the colonial military and security establishment must be held accountable for unlawful conduct established against its personnel or agents.

No movement should demand public trust while refusing public scrutiny. No government should claim to protect civilians while shielding those responsible for violating their rights. And no individual should be allowed to turn the suffering of Southern Cameroonians into an instrument of personal advancement. The current public confrontation may eventually prove to be little more than a dispute between competing personalities. Alternatively, authenticated evidence may reveal conduct requiring criminal investigation. Until that evidence is established, neither possibility should be presented as fact. What must remain constant is the people’s right to truth, justice, security and a political future determined through legitimate means.

OUR DESTINATION REMAINS BUEA

For supporters of Ambazonia’s independence, Buea remains more than a geographical location. It represents the political destination of a people seeking self-determination, accountable institutions and control over their collective future. That aspiration cannot be extinguished by the quarrels of controversial personalities. Nor should its legitimacy depend upon defending every person who claims to support it.

The dispute involving Nkonda Titus and Tambe Tiku must therefore be judged by what it actually reveals. If the audio recording contains credible evidence of kidnapping, unlawful killings or the involvement of colonial military personnel, it should be authenticated and investigated. If individuals have knowingly supplied information that exposed civilians to unlawful violence, their roles must be established and accountability pursued. If crimes have been deliberately attributed to Ambazonia fighters despite evidence pointing elsewhere, the public record must be corrected. And where evidence establishes abuses by separatist fighters, those crimes must also be acknowledged rather than concealed.

The objective is not to exchange one propaganda narrative for another. It is to ensure that the truth is not buried beneath political manipulation, personal rivalry or the ambitions of individuals claiming proximity to power.

Ambazonia is a people’s struggle. It is not the private property of Nkonda Titus, Tambe Tiku, colonial officials, political personalities or any armed faction. Its credibility rests with the people, its historical claims, its leadership and its commitment to justice. The people deserve the truth. Victims deserve justice. Those responsible for criminal violence must face accountability, regardless of their allegiance. The destination remains Buea. But the responsibility along the journey is equally clear: protect the people, establish the truth and never allow the struggle to be defined by those who would exploit or discredit it.

Editors note:

The allegations discussed in this article require independent verification. The identification of individuals in public controversies does not establish criminal responsibility.

As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases

Buy your copies of books on the Ambazonian revolution By Martin Mungwa from Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Martin+mungwa&crid=OGWVBDZ2JM72&sprefix=martin+mungwa%2Caps%2C1437&linkCode=ll2&tag=njokings-20&linkId=8939b7573cb30f2387ff7f17a3da1000&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief, The Independentist News