After decades of endurance, appeals, negotiations, and betrayals, the line has been drawn. Not as a threat. Not as a posture. But as a conclusion. This is a point of no return. This is the Ambazonian position.
By Ali Dan Ismael
Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
There are moments in history when language itself must be stripped of politeness. When diplomacy becomes distortion. When moderation becomes complicity. This is one of those moments.
Let it be stated without hesitation, without qualification, and without apology: This is a point of no return. This is the Ambazonian position.
For over six decades, a fiction has been sustained—carefully curated, relentlessly defended, and internationally tolerated. A fiction called “union.” But what was presented in 1961 as a partnership of equals has revealed itself, in practice and in consequence, to be something far more insidious: a system of absorption, domination, and controlled marginalization.
Let us abandon the euphemisms. This was never a union. It was an annexation disguised as agreement. It was a constitutional arrangement without constitutional integrity. It was a political architecture designed not to balance power, but to concentrate it.
For years, the international community—and even segments of the internal political class—have spoken of “crisis,” “reform,” and “dialogue,” as though the problem were mechanical, as though the system had malfunctioned, as though it merely required adjustment. This analysis is not only wrong. It is dangerously misleading.
The system has not failed. The system has functioned exactly as designed. It has centralized power. It has dismantled federal guarantees. It has eroded legal and educational identity. It has reduced a people from partners to subjects. This is not collapse. This is execution.
For decades, the regime perfected a single strategy: the manufacture of legitimacy through symbolic inclusion. Anglophone faces were elevated. Titles were distributed. Positions were displayed. And the world was told: “Look—there is representation.” But representation without power is not governance. It is decoration. Participation without authority is not inclusion. It is performance.
Those who occupied these positions were not architects of policy. They were instruments of perception. They were deployed—not to protect their people—but to pacify them. And today, as the illusion collapses, they must confront a truth that history will not soften: they were not inside the system; they were used by it.
Now, suddenly, the language has changed. “Anglophones cheated again.” Condemnation emerges. Statements are issued. Outrage is performed. But let us ask the question that cannot be avoided: where was this outrage when villages were burned? Where was this awakening when civilians were hunted? Where was this conscience when lives were erased, not debated? While the political class argued over constitutional nuance, the people endured existential reality. While titles were negotiated, communities were destroyed. And now—now—they discover injustice? No. This is not awakening. This is exposure.
The recent constitutional manipulation is not an isolated act. It is the final confirmation of what has long been evident. The dismantling of federalism in 1972 was not a reform—it was a rupture. The renaming of the state in 1984 was not symbolic—it was declarative. The systematic erosion of institutions was not incidental—it was intentional. And now, the restructuring of executive power completes the cycle. This is not governance. This is consolidation. This is not a republic. This is control.
Let us now bury, once and for all, the language of illusion. There will be no meaningful decentralization. There will be no equitable reform. There will be no negotiated balance within a structure built to deny it. You do not reform a system designed to exclude you. You do not negotiate equality within a framework that denies your existence. You do not plead for justice from an architecture engineered to withhold it. Reform is not delayed. Reform is dead.
This is not a declaration born of emotion. It is the product of evidence. It is the result of history. It is the logic of lived experience. The Ambazonian position is clear: the crisis is not political—it is structural. The problem is not implementation—it is design. The failure is not episodic—it is systemic. And therefore, the solution cannot be cosmetic. It must be foundational.
To the international community: you can no longer hide behind ambiguity. You can no longer confuse neutrality with responsibility. You can no longer interpret a structural reality as a temporary dispute. History is watching, and history does not reward hesitation in the face of truth.
To the regime: the illusion has collapsed. The language has expired. The mask has fallen. And what has been revealed cannot be negotiated back into legitimacy.
After decades of endurance, appeals, negotiations, and betrayals, the line has been drawn. Not as a threat. Not as a posture. But as a conclusion. This is a point of no return. This is the Ambazonian position.
Ali Dan Ismael
Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
