Anglophones did not rise up expecting to be killed for their political opinion. They rose up expecting the law, dignity, and history to matter. And history has a habit of being unkind to those who confuse comfort with conscience.
By Ako Aya The Indepenedentistnews contributor
Kristian Ngah Christian’s so-called “open letter to separatist leaders and Amba fighters” is not a cry for peace; it is a carefully packaged act of victim-blaming, wrapped in selective compassion and delivered from the comfort of regime protection. It is less a plea on “bended knees” and more a demand for surrender—one that asks the oppressed to absolve the oppressor by laying down their rights.
Let us be clear from the outset: this letter is not neutral, not honest, and not courageous. It is a political brief written to sanitize occupation, delegitimize resistance, and shift responsibility for suffering away from its true cause.
- The Fundamental Lie: Blaming the Victim
The author’s central argument is that Anglophone suffering proves the struggle for independence is wrong and should be abandoned. This logic is not only flawed—it is morally perverse. Suffering did not begin with resistance. Suffering preceded resistance.
• Marginalization did not start in 2016
• Disenfranchisement did not start in 2017
• Cultural erasure, judicial subjugation, and political exclusion did not start with the first protest
To argue that resistance must end because repression is brutal is to argue that slavery should have continued because abolition was costly. By this reasoning, no people in history would ever have been free. - The Historical Amnesia Problem: Mr. Ngah writes as though Anglophones woke up one morning and decided to burn down their own house for entertainment. That is dishonest. The crisis began as: Peaceful lawyers’ protests, Peaceful teachers’ protests, Peaceful civic demands for equality and respect. The state responded with: Bullets instead of dialogue, Prison instead of reform, Militarization instead of justice. Armed conflict was not the objective—it was the consequence of state violence. To erase that sequence is not journalism; it is propaganda.
- Self-Determination Is Not a Crime: The author speaks as though demanding independence is a moral deviation. It is not. Self-determination is a right under international law, enshrined in: The UN Charter, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Southern Cameroons did not “invent” this right. It inherited statehood, entered a political union, and now seeks a return to that statehood after a failed experiment. This struggle was never promised to be painless. It was meant to be decisive—to end structural suffering by reclaiming control over political destiny.
- The Education Argument: Convenient but Dishonest. Yes, schools have suffered. Yes, children have lost years. But let us ask the question Mr. Ngah avoids: Who militarized school zones? Who occupied campuses with soldiers? Who turned classrooms into barracks? It is disingenuous to mourn the collapse of education while absolving the force that made normal schooling impossible. Education does not flourish under occupation, fear, and military checkpoints—no matter how many “open letters” are written.
- The Selective Outrage Problem: Notice what the letter does not meaningfully address: Indiscriminate state bombardments, Mass arrests without trial, Torture, disappearances, and executions, The burning of villages, The criminalization of political opinion. Instead, the author focuses almost exclusively on non-state actors, creating a narrative where the occupier disappears and the occupied are left arguing among themselves. That is not peace advocacy. That is conflict laundering.
- The Referendum Claim: A Fiction Dressed as Fact. The claim that “99.9% of Anglophones would vote to stay in a one and indivisible Cameroon” is not analysis—it is wishful thinking masquerading as data. If the author truly believed this: He would advocate for a UN-supervised referendum. He would demand demilitarization before voting. He would insist on freedom of speech and assembly. He does none of these—because the regime he defends fears the very vote he pretends would favor it.
- Misusing Mahatma Gandhi: Quoting Gandhi while defending a system built on force is ironic at best. Gandhi did not ask Indians to surrender to empire. He did not ask them to accept injustice for the sake of “normalcy.” He confronted oppression—peacefully, yes—but without legitimizing it. Invoking Gandhi to urge capitulation is like quoting Scripture to justify chains.
- The Real Question Mr. Ngah Refuses to Ask:
The question is not: “Why are Anglophones suffering?” The question is: Why is a people asking for dignity and their right to self-determination meet with annihilation? Peace without justice is not peace. Silence without freedom is not stability. Surrender without rights is not reconciliation. Conclusion: History Is Watching
This struggle was never about alleviating short-term discomfort. It was about ending permanent subjugation. Those who urge the victim to “stop resisting” while enjoying the privileges of compliance are not peacemakers—they are stakeholders in injustice. Anglophones did not rise up expecting to be killed for their political opinion. They rose up expecting the law, dignity, and history to matter. And history has a habit of being unkind to those who confuse comfort with conscience. Sometimes the most dangerous voice in a conflict is not the one carrying a gun—but the one carrying a pen that teaches the oppressed to doubt their own right to exist. Ako Aya
