It must be earned through transparency, credible leadership, institutional accountability, and a shared commitment to principles. The struggle is bigger than any individual. Its future must never depend on the ambitions, disagreements, or competing claims of a few.
By Timothy Enongene, Editor-in-Chief
The Independentist News
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Get your copies of publications on the Ambazonian revolution By Martin Mungwa on Amazon
THE STRUGGLE IS GREATER THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL
TOMBEL – 6 November 2026 – The Ambazonian struggle cannot afford another season of division, confusion, institutional rivalry, and competing claims to leadership. Nearly a decade after the declaration of Ambazonian independence, the movement continues to confront serious internal challenges alongside its unresolved political confrontation with Yaoundé.
Among these challenges is the increasingly contentious question of political leadership exercised from prison. Former President Sisiku Julius Ayuk Tabe occupies a significant place in the history of the Ambazonian independence movement. His arrest in Nigeria in January 2018, subsequent transfer to Cameroon, and continued imprisonment have made him an enduring symbol for many supporters of the struggle. That history deserves recognition.
However, imprisonment does not eliminate the difficult questions of political legitimacy, institutional continuity, representation, and accountability. Nor should genuine solidarity with imprisoned leaders require unquestioning acceptance of every proposal advanced in their names.
The central question is not who speaks most passionately about Ambazonia, but who possesses a credible mandate to speak and act on behalf of its people. It is against this background that the public interventions and proposals associated with Agbor Gilbert, Dr. David Makongo, and emerging leadership arrangements deserve careful examination.
A QUESTION FOR AGBOR GILBERT: WHO HIJACKED THE STRUGGLE?
Agbor Gilbert has been associated, in the political debate addressed by this commentary, with the allegation that the Ambazonian struggle has been hijacked. Such an allegation, if accurately attributed, is serious. It deserves more than rhetorical repetition.
Who precisely is alleged to have hijacked the struggle? Which institutions or individuals are implicated? What identifiable actions constitute the alleged hijacking? And what documentary or organizational evidence supports the accusation? Political movements cannot maintain credibility if allegations are treated as established truths merely because they are expressed forcefully.
The word hijacking implies an unauthorized seizure of authority or control. If that is the allegation, the evidence must identify the legitimate authority allegedly displaced, the mechanism through which control was taken, and the consequences for the movement. Otherwise, the accusation risks becoming another instrument of factional conflict.
This is not an argument against criticism. On the contrary, political institutions must remain open to scrutiny. But scrutiny must be accompanied by evidence, consistency, and procedural fairness. No individual should be condemned without evidence. Equally, no political claim should be exempt from examination because of the identity or reputation of the person making it.
HAVE THE IMPRISONED LEADERS BEEN ABANDONED?
Another contentious issue concerns allegations that imprisoned Ambazonian leaders have been abandoned. The word abandonment carries significant moral and political weight. It suggests that those with an obligation to provide assistance have deliberately neglected their responsibilities. Such a claim must therefore be examined carefully.
The arrest and transfer of Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and other Ambazonian figures from Nigeria to Cameroon generated legal proceedings in Abuja. In March 2019, a Nigerian Federal High Court ruled that the arrest, detention, and deportation of the affected individuals were unlawful. That legal history is a matter of public record.
There have also been claims that approximately US$200,000 was expended through Ambazonian government efforts on legal representation associated with the Abuja proceedings. That figure deserves independent documentary verification before being presented as an established expenditure. If confirmed, it would be important evidence of institutional assistance deserving acknowledgment.
However, questions about support for imprisoned compatriots should not be reduced to a contest between competing declarations of loyalty. A credible assessment would examine: – The financial resources raised and disbursed for legal representation. –The individuals and institutions responsible for those expenditures. – The availability of legal, humanitarian, and family assistance.– The outcomes of legal and diplomatic initiatives.
Outstanding obligations and continuing needs. Where disclosure could compromise legal privilege, detainee safety, or confidential proceedings, appropriate summaries or independently verified accounts could be provided. Those alleging abandonment should present supporting evidence. Those rejecting the allegation should likewise provide verifiable information about assistance delivered.
The imprisoned leaders deserve practical solidarity, not merely competing public claims about who has supported them most faithfully. Their welfare, legal rights, and prospects for release must remain a matter of serious institutional responsibility.
DAVID MAKONGO: POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OR AN ALTERNATIVE CENTRE OF INFLUENCE?
Dr. David Makongo has emerged as a public voice advocating renewed political engagement over the conflict. His reported calls for Yaoundé to engage Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and other detained leaders must be assessed fairly. Advocating negotiations is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty to the Ambazonian cause.
Indeed, serious political negotiations may become necessary in any credible effort to end a prolonged conflict. The relevant questions concern the proposed negotiating framework, representation, mandate, agenda, and anticipated outcomes.
Does a proposal recognize the need for legitimate representation? Does it respect the political positions and institutional commitments of those it claims to represent? Does it seek broad consultation or rely principally on the endorsement of selected personalities? And does it establish safeguards against the emergence of another competing leadership structure? These questions should be asked of Dr. Makongo’s proposals, just as they should be asked of initiatives advanced by every other participant in the struggle.
The purpose of scrutiny should be to establish political clarity, not to assign guilt by association. There is no basis in the information examined here for asserting that Dr. Makongo is acting on behalf of Yaoundé. His positions should therefore be assessed through his documented statements, the procedures he proposes, and the practical consequences of those proposals. That is the standard of responsible political analysis.
IG-CARE, APLA AND THE QUESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
The emergence of new organizational arrangements has intensified questions about legitimacy and continuity within the Ambazonian independence movement. In September 2026, a faction of the Ambazonian Interim Government announced a transition toward the Ambazonia People’s Liberation Authority, commonly identified as APLA. Subsequent announcements outlined appointments and proposed institutional responsibilities.
These developments raise legitimate governance questions. What authority approved the transition? Which constitutional or organizational provisions govern such restructuring? Which representatives participated in the decision? What mechanisms exist for accountability? And how are disagreements over institutional legitimacy to be resolved?
Similar questions must be addressed concerning initiatives identified as IG-CARE, whose precise mandate, leadership structure, and authorization require clarification. The creation of a new institution is not necessarily evidence of division. Organizations sometimes restructure to improve efficiency, strengthen representation, or respond to changing political circumstances.
However, institutional restructuring becomes problematic when authority is unclear, decision-making is opaque, or competing bodies claim incompatible mandates. The movement therefore needs transparent explanations of organizational changes.
Institutional legitimacy cannot rest indefinitely on personalities, declarations, or competing press releases. It must be supported by recognizable procedures, accountable structures, and credible authorization. If an initiative genuinely strengthens coordination, its proponents should be able to explain how. If it introduces a competing claim to authority, its proponents should explain how that claim can be reconciled with existing institutions. Political unity requires more than the language of cooperation. It requires agreed rules.
A CANDID APPEAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT SISIKU AYUK TABE
Former President Sisiku Ayuk Tabe is urged to reflect carefully on the increasingly complex political environment surrounding his leadership and the wider independence movement. His sacrifices and continued imprisonment command respect among many Ambazonians. Yet respect should not prevent honest discussion of the responsibilities associated with political leadership. The decisions of an influential leader can affect institutions, supporters, diplomatic initiatives, and relationships among organizations.
For that reason, proposals presented to him deserve careful examination. Who is providing the advice? What interests are represented? What evidence supports the recommendations? What authority is being requested? What effect would acceptance have on existing institutions? And would the proposal strengthen collective capacity or create another centre of political rivalry? These questions are not expressions of hostility. They are the ordinary requirements of responsible leadership.
A leader who enjoys substantial public confidence has a corresponding responsibility to exercise influence with restraint, transparency, and sound judgment. Former President Ayuk Tabe should be encouraged to promote institutional reconciliation, procedural clarity, and constructive engagement among organizations pursuing related political objectives.
Such an approach would honor his historical contribution while recognizing that the struggle is larger than any individual. The strongest leadership is not leadership that demands unquestioning loyalty. It is leadership that helps institutions remain credible even when personalities disagree.
DIVIDE, WEAKEN AND RULE: A WARNING AGAINST INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION
History demonstrates that divided political movements often struggle to achieve coherent negotiating positions, sustain public confidence, and maintain organizational discipline. Political fragmentation can benefit an adversary even where no deliberate infiltration has occurred. This distinction is essential.
An organizational dispute may weaken a movement without any participant being an agent of an opposing government. Personal ambition, mistrust, institutional uncertainty, inconsistent communication, and unresolved leadership grievances can produce damaging consequences independently.
It would therefore be irresponsible to accuse Agbor Gilbert, David Makongo, or any other participant of collaboration with Yaoundé without credible evidence. At the same time, it would be equally irresponsible to ignore the political effects of proposals that may deepen institutional divisions. The appropriate standard is straightforward:
Examine the claim. Verify the evidence. Identify the authority. Assess the consequences. Personal attacks cannot substitute for institutional accountability. Nor can slogans substitute for a coherent political strategy. A movement facing a formidable external challenge must be particularly careful not to exhaust its energies in internal contests over recognition and authority.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AMBAZONIAN GOVERNMENT
The Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, as constituted and understood by its supporters, also bears a responsibility to demonstrate institutional credibility. Claims of governmental authority should be accompanied by transparent procedures and accountable decision-making. Support for imprisoned compatriots should be documented wherever reasonably possible. Changes in organizational structures should be explained clearly.
Disagreements should be addressed through credible internal mechanisms rather than endless public denunciations. Political representation should reflect a legitimate mandate, not simply the ability to issue statements in the name of the nation. The same standards must apply to established institutions and emerging organizations alike.
No movement advances its cause by exempting its preferred leaders from scrutiny while demanding accountability only from political rivals. Unity built on silence is fragile. Unity grounded in fairness, transparency, and institutional legitimacy has a stronger foundation.
THE WAY FORWARD: UNITY THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY
The Ambazonian independence movement faces significant challenges requiring careful political judgment. The continued detention of prominent leaders, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict, the persistence of armed violence, and the difficulty of establishing credible negotiations all demand sustained attention. Internal political disputes should not be allowed to eclipse these urgent matters.
A constructive approach would prioritize several principles. First, allegations concerning leadership, financial support, and institutional misconduct should be supported by verifiable evidence. Second, organizations proposing new leadership structures should disclose their governing mandates and decision-making procedures. Third, imprisoned leaders should receive appropriate legal and humanitarian support without their circumstances becoming instruments of factional competition. Fourth, disagreements should be addressed through transparent, nonviolent, and inclusive institutional processes.
Finally, political engagement should remain consistent with civilian protection, respect for human rights, and the peaceful pursuit of legitimate political objectives. The objective should not be to silence disagreement. It should be to establish a framework in which disagreement can be examined and resolved without destroying institutional confidence.
CONCLUSION: THE STRUGGLE MUST NOT BECOME A CONTEST OF PERSONALITIES
Agbor Gilbert has questions to answer concerning any specific allegation that the struggle has been hijacked. David Makongo’s proposals deserve careful examination of their authority, content, and political consequences.
Those advancing IG-CARE, APLA, or other organizational arrangements should provide clear explanations of their mandates and accountability. Former President Sisiku Ayuk Tabe should be encouraged to consider these competing voices with independence of judgment and a commitment to institutional stability.
And every organization claiming to represent Ambazonian interests must accept that political credibility requires more than declarations of loyalty. These standards are not directed against any individual. They are essential to responsible collective leadership.
The freedom of imprisoned compatriots, the protection of civilians, and the pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the underlying political dispute must remain more important than organizational prestige or personal influence. Political movements can survive disagreement. They are much less likely to thrive when disagreement becomes permanent institutional fragmentation.
DIVIDE. WEAKEN. RULE.
That warning should inspire vigilance, not paranoia. It should encourage critical examination, not unsupported accusations. Above all, it should remind every participant that genuine unity cannot be manufactured through slogans or enforced through personal loyalty. It must be earned through transparency, credible leadership, institutional accountability, and a shared commitment to principles. The struggle is bigger than any individual. Its future must never depend on the ambitions, disagreements, or competing claims of a few.
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Get your copies of publications on the Ambazonian revolution By Martin Mungwa on Amazon
Timothy Enongene, Editor-in-Chief
The Independentist News
