Letter to the editor:
Dear editor,
Your article titled, THE BIG LIE OF “CAMEROON”: A STATE BUILT ON DISTORTION, MAINTAINED BY AMNESIA is a selective fragmentation of facts from a personal construct arranged to suit wishful thinking. The article undermines historical facts anthropomorphological considerations and political goodwill.
Considering that the state is a recent political appellation stepping from Epic heroism, clans, cultural groupings, chiefdom, kingdoms empires etc. A heterogenous group of people occupied the present territory of present day Cameroon before the partition of Africa. The German after the partition had the daunting task of galvanizing these different groups of people under a political agenda or ideology.
The Versailles treaty disrupted the ambitions of the Germans and put the kameruns from the Portuguese definition under trust and mandatory control. The raison d’être of these control and administration was to educate the heterogenous groups and people of kameruns on the concept of statehood. Therefore Cameroon learned to become a state. Consequently Cameroon had been a state eve before 196o as you claim.
Early civilisations paved the way for political institutions through heroic leadership and cultural administration except for the fact that each group was autonomous and independent in policies. The state of cameroon is actually a foundational and historical construction under a progressive transformation which only needs the determination and a strong belief in a Cameroonian identity established by the Cameroonian people themselves void of any cultural or linguistic back lining and external influence.
Cameroon has to be of the people for the people and by the people of Cameroon. Cameroon needs the willful participation and contributions of all its people.
Richard Kemiwo
Rebuttal/Response:
Independence Was Not a Product of Chiefdoms
Sir Richard Kemiwo,
Thank you for the above reaction to our story. The central flaw in the argument you present is the conflation of pre-colonial social organization with modern political legitimacy. While it is true that various clans, chiefdoms, and cultural groupings existed across the territory now called Cameroon, it is fundamentally incorrect to suggest that these entities determined, or could determine, the independence of a modern state.
First, independence in the 20th century was not decided by chiefdoms, kingdoms, or cultural groupings. It was determined through international legal processes, decolonization frameworks, and formal political instruments recognized by the global community. The transition from colonial rule to independence was governed by treaties, plebiscites, constitutional arrangements, and United Nations–supervised processes—not by traditional authorities acting in isolation.
Second, invoking pre-colonial structures to justify modern statehood is a category error. Chiefdoms and kingdoms were localized systems of governance, not sovereign entities in the sense recognized under international law. They did not negotiate independence, nor did they constitute the legal basis for the creation of post-colonial states.
Third, the German colonial administration—and later the League of Nations and United Nations trusteeship systems—did not create a unified “Cameroonian state” in any meaningful sovereign sense. These were external administrative overlays, not expressions of internal political unity or consent. The people were governed, not self-governing.
Fourth, the decisive moment in determining political status came through internationally recognized acts, including plebiscites and constitutional transitions, which defined the political future of distinct territories. These processes acknowledged that the populations in these territories were not a monolithic entity, but groups whose political destinies required formal determination.
Fifth, it must be stated clearly that much of the confusion surrounding this issue today is sustained by revisionist narratives being propagated through segments of the ruling Beti-Bulu establishment and reinforced by aligned Anglophone networks. These narratives selectively reinterpret history to manufacture continuity where none legally existed, often blurring the distinction between administrative convenience and sovereign legitimacy. Such reconstructions are not neutral—they serve political ends, not historical accuracy.
Finally, the assertion that Cameroon “learned to become a state” under colonial tutelage oversimplifies and distorts the historical record. Statehood is not a lesson imposed from above—it is a political reality grounded in legitimacy, consent, and self-determination. These cannot be assumed or retroactively imposed.
In conclusion, while cultural and historical diversity is undeniable, it is irrelevant to the legal and political processes that determined independence. The independence of modern states was not—and could not have been—decided by chiefdoms. It was determined by recognized international mechanisms, which must remain the primary reference point for any serious historical or political analysis.
Ali Dan Ismael Editor-in-Chief
