Letter to the Editor
Subject; Seeking Clarification on “From Sacred Heart to Yaoundé”
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the compelling article “From Sacred Heart to Yaoundé: The Rise and Fall of Felix Mbayu.” As someone who appreciates courageous journalism, I applaud your effort to expose complicity and moral failure. That said, I have a few honest concerns and questions I hope you’ll address.
Q1. The article says Dr. Amina Mohammed tore up an envelope containing 100 million CFA francs. Did this actually happen publicly and literally? Isn’t that a bit hard to believe?
Q2. Why does the article refer to the human rights abuses in Southern Cameroons as “allegations”? These aren’t allegations—they’re facts, aren’t they?
Q3. The quote from Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako was the most powerful part of the article. It felt deeply true and timely. How did you choose it?
Q4. The rest of the article really hit the mark. Honestly, how can anyone in their right mind still be serving in the Biya regime and not be complicit in its crimes? What could they possibly be proud of?
Thank you for considering this response. I believe these clarifications will help sharpen the impact of your already powerful reporting.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Reader
Name withheld for personal safety
Response from the Editorial Desk – The Independentist
Subject: Clarifying “From Sacred Heart to Yaoundé” – A Dialogue with Our Readers
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. We believe journalism must always welcome feedback—especially when it comes from those most invested in truth and justice. Below are our responses to your important questions:
Q1: Did Dr. Amina Mohammed literally tear up an envelope containing 100 million CFA francs?
A1: Excellent point. The phrase “tore up the envelope” was used symbolically—based on accounts that she firmly rejected a financial overture made by the regime during her visit to Yaoundé. In diplomatic dealings, envelopes may contain letters of intent, sealed offers, or vouchers—not cash. The act of “tearing” was metaphorical and reflective of her uncompromising stance. We agree: clearer language would have helped prevent confusion, and future reporting will reflect that.
Q2: Why refer to documented human rights abuses as “allegations”?
A2: You’re absolutely right. While our editorial standards require certain phrasing for legal neutrality—especially when publishing in international spaces—we agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN Special Rapporteurs have independently confirmed atrocities, including massacres, arbitrary detentions, and village burnings. These are no longer mere allegations. Your comment is noted, and future pieces will reflect that distinction more explicitly in domestic editions.
Q3: How was Dr. Sako’s quote selected?
A3: Dr. Sako’s quote stood out to us as a moment of moral clarity. It was not scripted or solicited. It came from an internal communication to cabinet members and was later cleared for public use. It speaks directly to the dilemma many face: do you serve a system of silence, or do you break it with truth? That quote framed the very heart of our article.
Q4: How can anyone serve in the Biya regime without being complicit?
A4: That is the question. As we stated in the article, there is no such thing as neutral participation in a system that is actively engaged in repression. Every civil servant, every diplomat, every spokesperson plays a role in maintaining the regime’s façade—whether willingly or under pressure. There may be individuals who stay hoping to make a difference from within—but history will judge actions, not intentions.
In closing, we thank you again for engaging so honestly. Our revolution must not only be a fight for independence—it must also be a fight for intellectual integrity, moral accountability, and journalistic truth.
In solidarity,
The Editorial Desk
The Independentist
Free Voices for a Free Homeland
Leave feedback about this