An anonymous Ambazonian Patriot writes to the editor of The Independentist news on the subject of the February 11th 1961 Southern Cameroons Plebiscite.

Letter to the Editor

Subject: Why the Southern Cameroons Plebiscite Was Fundamentally Different

Sir/Madam,

Public discussion of the political status of Southern Cameroons is often dismissed as emotional or revisionist. In fact, the issue rests on a clear, verifiable historical and legal distinction: the plebiscite conducted in British Southern Cameroons was fundamentally different from the one held in British Togoland.

Both territories were United Nations Trust Territories administered by Britain and subject to the same decolonization principles under the UN Charter. However, when the decisive moment arrived, the United Nations applied two markedly different legal approaches.

In British Togoland, the 1956 plebiscite asked the population whether they wished to integrate with the Gold Coast, which later became Ghana, or to reject that option and pursue a different political future. The question concerned territorial integration, and the outcome was followed by clear constitutional and legislative steps within the successor state. As a result, Togoland’s decolonization was completed, and its international status has never remained in dispute.

In British Southern Cameroons, by contrast, the plebiscite of 11 February 1961 offered voters only two choices: to “achieve independence by joining” Nigeria or to “achieve independence by joining” the Republic of Cameroon. Independence as a sovereign state was not on the ballot. There was no option to remain under trusteeship temporarily, no mandate to negotiate a treaty of union, and no opportunity for a Southern Cameroons legislature to ratify any constitutional arrangement after the vote.

This distinction is not semantic. Under international law, independence is a legal status, not a rhetorical phrase. “Independence by joining” is not recognized as a substitute for independence followed by a negotiated and duly ratified union. Significantly, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1608 (XV) merely took note of the plebiscite results; it did not approve, endorse, or attach any treaty of union between Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon—because no such treaty existed.

The consequence is unavoidable. British Togoland completed its decolonization through lawful integration. Southern Cameroons did not complete its decolonization at all. What followed in 1961 was administrative absorption without a treaty, without ratification, and without the sovereign consent of a Southern Cameroons state.

This is why Ghana’s borders are settled, while the status of Southern Cameroons remains contested. The issue is not nostalgia, rebellion, or politics. It is a matter of unfinished decolonization and unresolved legality.

Ignoring this historical distinction does not make it disappear. Confronting it honestly is the first step toward a lawful, peaceful, and durable solution.

Respectfully,
A Patriot (name withheld)