Ambazonia is the project. Freedom is the objective. Responsible sovereignty is the destination. And if the day comes for genuine third-party-mediated negotiations, those entering the room should understand what is being contested and what must be resolved. Not merely North West versus South West. Not merely one politician in Yaoundé versus another. Not merely a competition for appointments.
By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief, The Independentist News
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Its back to school, get your needs from Amazon
BUEA – 26 August 2026 – There is nothing wrong with calling for unity among our people. Unity is indispensable. But there is a fundamental distinction that must not be blurred: the restoration movement is not principally a campaign to reconcile people identified administratively as “North West” and “South West.” Its declared objective is the restoration and effective exercise of political authority over the territory historically known as the Former British Southern Cameroons and today called Ambazonia by the independence movement. That distinction matters.
The restoration movement does not begin from the premise that Ambazonia is merely a region waiting to be offered another constitutional arrangement within La République du Cameroun. Its position is that the people of Southern Cameroons have a distinct political history, that the post-1961 constitutional order failed to preserve the political safeguards expected by many Southern Cameroonians, and that the contemporary struggle seeks sovereign self-government rather than another administrative accommodation within the existing Cameroonian state. Others dispute that position. That dispute is precisely why a credible political process is necessary.
WHAT WOULD A REAL NEGOTIATION BE ABOUT?
If La République du Cameroun and the restoration leadership eventually agree to genuine third-party-facilitated negotiations, the purpose of such a process should not be confused with a conference designed merely to reconcile “North West” and “South West.” Nor should the outcome be predetermined before the parties enter the room.
The substantive dispute concerns competing claims over political authority, constitutional status, territory, security, citizenship, resources, institutions, and the future political relationship between the populations concerned. From the restoration movement’s perspective, therefore, negotiations should address the underlying political question rather than begin by limiting discussion to federalism, decentralization, special status, or ministerial representation in Yaoundé.
A credible mediator does not need to accept either side’s opening position in order to recognize that the underlying dispute must be addressed. That is the difference between negotiation and prescription.
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP HAS A HISTORY
Our political history did not begin with social media, contemporary factions, or today’s politicians in Yaoundé. Southern Cameroons passed through identifiable periods of indigenous political leadership—from E.M.L. Endeley to John Ngu Foncha and Augustine Ngom Jua, and through subsequent generations of political actors associated with the Southern Cameroons question. The contemporary restoration era has itself produced competing organizations, leaders, strategies and claims to political authority. That history should make us more serious, not less. It should also warn us against rewriting a complicated national question as though it were simply a dispute between people from two administrative regions.
Differences between communities have always existed. They exist in every country. Political rivalry exists. Ethnic prejudice exists. Leadership conflict exists. Regional competition exists. Economic inequality exists. But the existence of internal differences does not, by itself, establish that two separate and permanently antagonistic peoples exist. That distinction is critical.
DO NOT TURN ADMINISTRATIVE LABELS INTO NATIONAL DESTINIES
The terminology deserves examination. “North West” and “South West” are administrative designations embedded in the contemporary Cameroonian state structure. They describe geographic realities familiar to millions of people, and there is no need to pretend that those identities do not exist. But administrative identities should not automatically determine the constitutional future of an entire people. The nation we seek to build must be larger than inherited administrative compartments.
The Ambazonian vision should therefore be one in which a citizen from Bachuo Ntai, Essimbi, Ikiliwindi, Bamenda, Buea, Mamfe, Victoria, Nkambe, Wum, Mundemba, Kumba or any other community can live, work, invest, travel, vote and in national life without becoming a second-class citizen because of county, village, ethnicity, language, ancestry or geography. That is the unity worth defending. Not unity merely for negotiating positions. Unity for building institutions. Unity for protecting citizens. Unity for creating economic opportunity. Unity for making political freedom governable.
YAOUNDÉ’S POLITICAL COMPETITION IS NOT THE SAME QUESTION
We must also distinguish political competition inside La République du Cameroun from the Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia question. Cameroonian opposition politicians may disagree profoundly with President Paul Biya. They may offer different programs for governing Cameroon. They may seek constitutional reform, democratization or the presidency itself. Those are important matters for Cameroonian citizens.
But from the standpoint of the restoration movement, replacing one president in Yaoundé with another does not by itself resolve the underlying Southern Cameroons political question. A change of occupant at the Unity Palace does not automatically settle disputes over political consent, constitutional history, self-government or the relationship between Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon.
Maurice Kamto’s political ambitions are therefore not identical to the Ambazonian question. Issa Tchiroma’s political ambitions are not identical to the Ambazonian question. Neither is the future of Ambazonia reducible to which politician governs from Yaoundé. These are analytically different questions and should be treated as such.
WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SOLVE?
Those who place a supposed “North West–South West problem” at the center of the present struggle should therefore explain precisely what problem they believe must be solved. Are we trying to reconcile two hostile countries inside Southern Cameroons? No. Are we merely trying to negotiate another internal arrangement in Cameroon? That is not the restoration movement’s objective. Are we seeking special status? That is not the restoration movement’s objective. Are we fighting to secure an Anglophone vice-presidency in Yaoundé? That is not the restoration movement’s objective
The declared objective of the restoration movement is considerably more fundamental: the political self-determination of the people of Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia. That does not mean our internal problems should be ignored. They must be confronted. Tribalism must be confronted. Regional prejudice must be confronted. Leadership disputes must be confronted. Corruption must be confronted. Political intolerance must be confronted. Economic inequality must be confronted. The treatment of dissent must be confronted. And institutions must be designed so that no region, county, ethnic community, political organization or founding leader can dominate the Republic permanently. The answer to internal division is better citizenship and stronger institutions—not the elevation of inherited administrative divisions into rival national identities.
REPAIR THE HOUSE—DO NOT DIVIDE IT
Our internal house must indeed be repaired. But the objective of repair should be to create a political community in which every citizen stands equally before the law. This requires more than slogans about unity. We need constitutional safeguards. We need independent courts. We need credible local government. We need transparent public finance. We need professional security institutions under civilian authority. We need economic networks that connect Atlantic, Midland and Savannah communities rather than turning geography into political exclusion. We need institutions capable of surviving changes in leadership. And we need a political culture in which disagreement is not treated as treason.
Independence without institutions remains dangerously incomplete. Political freedom without economic capacity remains vulnerable. Sovereignty without administration becomes ceremonial. And unity without justice eventually fractures.
NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME
If negotiations eventually come, let them come through a credible process. Let a facilitator acceptable to the parties help create the conditions for serious dialogue. Let the restoration leadership present its case. Let the government of La République du Cameroun present its case. Let relevant African and international actors support rather than dictate the process. And let the fundamental issues be addressed rather than excluded in advance: political status, constitutional arrangements, territory, security, citizenship, displaced populations, borders, natural resources, institutions, transitional arrangements, economic relationships, implementation guarantees and the future relationship between the peoples concerned.
The mediator’s responsibility should not be to decide the destination before negotiations begin. The mediator’s responsibility should be to help create a credible road along which the parties can confront the dispute peacefully. That is negotiation.
UNITY MUST HAVE A PURPOSE
We have travelled too far, sacrificed too much and learned too many difficult lessons to allow the objective of the struggle to become confused. We must unite, but we must know what we are uniting for. We must heal internal divisions without manufacturing permanent national divisions from administrative boundaries. We must listen to one another without allowing political actors elsewhere to supply the entire vocabulary through which we understand ourselves.
We must debate leadership vigorously without reducing a national political project to personalities. We must also make room for those who disagree with the restoration movement. A Republic claiming freedom for itself cannot build its future by denying freedom of thought to its own citizens. That principle matters.
Someone may favor independence. Another may favor federation. Another may favor a negotiated constitutional arrangement. Those differences should be debated politically and democratically, not settled through intimidation. Our case becomes stronger when we can defend it before people who disagree with us.
FROM LIBERATION TO RESPONSIBLE SOVEREIGNTY
The most important question is therefore not simply whether we can proclaim sovereignty. It is whether we can build institutions capable of exercising it responsibly. Can we protect the citizen who criticizes the government? Can we account for public money? Can we maintain schools and hospitals? Can we keep electricity flowing? Can we create employment? Can we protect minorities? Can we secure our coastline and borders under law? Can we conduct diplomacy professionally? Can we make agreements and honor them? Can we replace leaders peacefully? Can political authority survive the personality who first occupies it? These are not distractions from liberation. They are the responsibilities liberation creates.
Our historical journey—from Endeley and Foncha through later generations of Southern Cameroons political leadership and into today’s restoration movement—contains achievements, mistakes, compromises, conflicts and lessons. We should study all of them. We should not worship any leader. We should not erase any period because it complicates our preferred narrative. And we should not confuse historical continuity with automatic political legitimacy. Legitimacy must ultimately come from the people.
THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS
Ambazonia is the project. Freedom is the objective. Responsible sovereignty is the destination. And if the day comes for genuine third-party-mediated negotiations, those entering the room should understand what is being contested and what must be resolved. Not merely North West versus South West. Not merely one politician in Yaoundé versus another. Not merely a competition for appointments.
But the political future of the Former British Southern Cameroons and the people who call it home. There may be competing answers. There may be competing governments and political movements claiming authority. There may be competing interpretations of history and law. A credible process must allow those claims to be examined rather than pretending they do not exist.
And ultimately the enduring question is not which leader speaks loudest. It is: Who has the legitimate authority to determine the political destiny of the people of Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia—and through what lawful, democratic and internationally credible process should that determination be made?
As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases
Its back to school, get your needs from Amazon
Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief
The Independentist News
