Akere Muna’s Petition, is well crafted. It draws on comparative law, invokes the “mischief rule,” cites constitutional safeguards, and documents Biya’s physical and cognitive decline with precision. It is a masterclass in legal advocacy—except for one fatal flaw. The author is an Ambazonian.
By The Independentist Editorial desk
On August 18, 2025, Barrister Akere Tabeng Muna, son of the late Solomon Tandeng Muna, submitted a lengthy petition to Cameroon’s Constitutional Council. His plea: that Paul Biya, 92 years old and visibly incapacitated, be declared ineligible for the October 12 presidential election under Article 118 of Cameroon’s Electoral Code.
The petition is well-crafted. It draws on comparative law, invokes the “mischief rule,” cites constitutional safeguards, and documents Biya’s physical and cognitive decline with precision. It is a masterclass in legal advocacy—except for one fatal flaw.
Akere Muna is an Ambazonian.
The Irony of Litigating Foreign Legitimacy
For decades, Ambazonia has stood on the simple truth: Britain never transferred Southern Cameroons’ sovereignty to La République du Cameroun. UN Resolution 1608 was left unimplemented. No treaty of union was ever signed. What exists today is occupation, not federation, not unity, and certainly not legality.
Against this backdrop, Akere’s decision to present himself before the Constitutional Council of Yaoundé as a presidential candidate is a tragic irony. By doing so, he is not only contesting Paul Biya’s fitness to rule Cameroon—he is inadvertently affirming Cameroon’s false claim to rule Ambazonia.
A Lesson from His Father’s Regret
Akere’s late father, Solomon Tandeng Muna, discovered at the twilight of his life that Ambazonia had been betrayed into annexation. He lived long enough to taste regret, but not long enough to correct it.
Akere now stands at the same fork in the road. He can either continue fighting for recognition in a system that never had jurisdiction over his people, or he can heed the lesson of history: Ambazonia’s battle is not to replace Biya in Yaoundé, but to restore sovereignty in Buea.
The Wrong “Governance by Proxy”
In his petition, Akere denounces Paul Biya’s “governance by proxy.” He describes a system where unelected officials, civil servants, and medical attendants rule in Biya’s name while the president himself drifts between hospitals and staged appearances.
The irony is that this is exactly how Ambazonia itself has been ruled for 63 years—by proxy. Colonial governors appointed from Yaoundé, backed by foreign soldiers, exercise powers never conferred upon them by the people of Southern Cameroons. Biya’s dependence is but a mirror of Cameroon’s own illegitimacy in Ambazonia.
Morning Again After 70 Years of Denial
Akere frames his petition as an act of patriotism. But Ambazonians view it as a misplaced effort. The real patriotism would have been to use his platform to say: “Ambazonia was never part of this Republic. The time has come to restore our sovereignty.”
Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako, President of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia (interim government), has long insisted that Ambazonia must not waste its future litigating who should rule Yaoundé. The real question is who has the lawful right to rule Buea.
For Akere, it is still morning, though more than 70 years have passed since denial began. There is still time to stand where his father stood at the end of his life: on the side of historical justice.
Conclusion
Akere Muna’s petition may expose Paul Biya’s incapacity, but it also exposes Ambazonia’s dilemma: too many of its sons still fight the wrong battles in foreign courts. For Ambazonia, the Constitutional Council of Cameroon has no jurisdiction. The true court is the court of international law, where the unfinished business of decolonization must be resolved.
The struggle is not about the next president of Cameroon. It is about the first and rightful president of a free Ambazonia.
The Independentist Editorial desk
Leave feedback about this