Leadership in times of crisis is often judged not only by declarations of unity, but by the confidence and participation of the people whose future is at stake.
By Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief
Independentistnews
BUEA 16 February 2026 – While officials in Yaoundé and sections of the media continue to revisit the internal divisions that marked earlier phases of the crisis, supporters of the Ambazonian cause argue that the movement has since undergone significant institutional changes. They point to developments between 2024 and 2025, culminating in what is referred to as the Leaders’ Pact, as an attempt to move beyond factional politics toward a more coordinated strategic direction.
For advocates of this framework, the pact represents more than a document; it symbolizes a collective effort to reduce internal rivalry and strengthen organizational coherence within the structures now operating under the banner of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia. Its supporters see it as a step away from personality-driven leadership toward institutional decision-making.
The Architecture of Unity
Proponents describe the Leaders’ Pact as a continuation of reforms initiated after the adoption of the Full Restoration Bill in late 2023. These reforms sought to move the movement from a provisional government model toward structures they consider more representative, including revived legislative and traditional advisory bodies.
According to those involved, the pact aimed to establish clearer channels of authority and coordination, particularly in diplomatic engagement and internal administration. The strategic priorities frequently highlighted include:
- International Engagement: Presenting a more unified diplomatic position to external actors and international institutions.
- Local Coordination: Strengthening internal governance and civilian protection mechanisms within affected communities.
- Humanitarian Organization: Expanding community-based capacity to address displacement and humanitarian needs amid continuing instability.
Supporters argue that these measures were designed to reduce fragmentation and prevent parallel leadership claims that previously complicated representation.
Continuing Disputes Over Representation
Despite claims of consolidation, debates over legitimacy and representation continue within different segments of the movement. Figures such as Chris Anu remain politically active but are viewed by critics as operating outside the structures endorsed by those who support the Leaders’ Pact framework.
At the same time, some observers caution that internal disagreements remain part of the broader political reality and that claims of complete unity may overlook ongoing differences among various groups and constituencies.
Mandate and Leadership Questions
Supporters of the current leadership contend that the pact reinforces the principle that decisions regarding negotiations or political direction should not rest with any single individual but with institutions they consider representative. They argue that efforts to centralize strategy aim to prevent unilateral negotiations that might lack broad support.
Under the present leadership, advocates say efforts have been made to coordinate political messaging and maintain influence on events affecting communities in the conflict zones. However, critics continue to question how widely accepted these leadership claims are across all segments of the population.
Divide-and-Rule Concerns
Many activists remain wary of external strategies that might exploit internal disagreements to weaken their negotiating position. At the same time, analysts note that perceptions of unity or division often vary depending on political affiliation and geographic context.
The ongoing challenge, observers suggest, lies in balancing the desire for unified representation with the need to accommodate diverse voices within a complex and evolving political landscape.
Conclusion: A Movement Still in Transition
Whether the Leaders’ Pact marks a definitive turning point or simply another phase in an evolving struggle remains a matter of debate. What is clear is that questions of leadership, legitimacy, and representation continue to shape both internal discourse and external perceptions of the conflict.
Ultimately, progress toward any sustainable resolution will depend on whether political actors on all sides can build processes seen as inclusive and credible by the communities most affected.
One Last Word:
Leadership in times of crisis is often judged not only by declarations of unity, but by the confidence and participation of the people whose future is at stake.
Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief
Independentistnews
