The debate between Comrade Francis Mbah and Comrade MM is less about personalities and more about direction. As the struggle matures, Ambazonians must decide whether unity remains a slogan—or becomes a functioning structure capable of advancing national objectives.
(Expanded Public Edition for clarity) By The Independentistnews Eduaction desk
Q1. What is Comrade Francis Mbah’s central claim?
Answer:
Comrade Francis Mbah argues that the primary obstacle to Ambazonia’s progress is disunity among movements and leaders. He maintains that early diaspora mobilization efforts, diplomatic outreach, and unity conferences laid foundations that later leadership structures failed to consolidate, resulting in fragmentation and competing legitimacy claims.
Q2. What is the core response from Comrade MM?
Answer:
The rebuttal acknowledges past contributions but argues that historical efforts alone cannot sustain a liberation struggle. The central issue now is not who started diplomacy first, but why sacrifices have not translated into strategic political progress. The response emphasizes that unity must now be institutional and operational, not merely emotional or historical.
Q3. Where do both sides agree?
Answer:
Both agree that: The suffering of Ambazonians remains central. Disunity weakens international support. Diplomacy and collaboration are essential. Leadership fragmentation has harmed progress. The disagreement lies in how unity should now be built and where diplomatic focus should shift.
Q4. What strategic question does the rebuttal raise regarding leadership geography?
Answer:
The rebuttal asks: How can leadership structures centered in South Africa overshadow a government operating in exile in the United States, where most cabinet members reside and where greater diplomatic leverage exists?
The argument suggests diplomatic engagement must focus where global political influence is strongest.
Q5. What concern is raised about South Africa’s diplomatic influence?
Answer:
The rebuttal questions what concrete leverage South Africa can deploy in support of Ambazonia when Pretoria itself has not issued strong public support statements for the Ambazonian cause.
Q6. What diplomatic opportunity does the rebuttal highlight?
Answer:
The rebuttal argues that evolving U.S. policy engagement with transnational leadership and diaspora actors presents a strategic opening that Ambazonians should capitalize on through professional diplomacy rather than emotionally driven engagement.
Q7. What is said about unity conferences and conclaves?
Answer:
The rebuttal argues that repeated conferences have produced declarations of unity but little operational coordination. The conclusion is that unity must now translate into concrete diplomatic, humanitarian, and governance coordination.
Q8. What institutional solution is proposed?
Answer:
The response points to participation in Local Government Area (LGA) structures as one accessible channel for coordination, stating:
“Join your LGA and your voice will be heard.”
The argument is that institutions, however imperfect, are necessary to build governance capacity.
Q9. Why is institutional participation emphasized?
Answer:
Because those operating inside structures carry operational responsibility. The rebuttal uses a metaphor: “We cannot sit in the house while others remain in the rain and expect both groups to listen with the same level of attention.” Participation creates legitimacy and influence.
Q10. What criticism is made regarding participation barriers?
Answer:
The rebuttal states that joining such structures does not require payment or allegiance, and claims suggesting otherwise undermine the honesty unity advocates claim to uphold.
Q11. Additional Questions Raised for Clarification
Public debate now raises additional questions directed toward Comrade Mbah’s claims about diplomacy and diaspora leadership. In what official capacity was diplomacy conducted, and under which institutional mandate?
What concrete diplomatic outcomes were achieved—what governments engaged, what policy shifts occurred, and what measurable gains resulted for Ambazonia, and when?
Is activism sometimes being confused with diplomacy, when governments often require formal channels rather than protest mobilization?
Was the revolution truly relocated to South Africa, or was it temporarily exported to the diaspora through activists such as Tapang Ivo and Mark Bareta following early mobilization efforts linked to Pa Tassang and actors on the home front?
If South Africa is described as the diaspora base of the revolution, why have Ambazonians there struggled to persuade influential South African political figures to elevate the Ambazonian cause within South African parliamentary or African Union legislative forums located in South Africa?
And finally, has diaspora competition sometimes unintentionally slowed rather than accelerated the struggle by turning liberation platforms into arenas of ownership disputes rather than collective national action?
These questions are posed not as personal attacks, but as issues requiring honest reflection if progress is to be achieved.
Q12. What final lesson emerges from this exchange?
Answer:
Both perspectives ultimately highlight a painful reality: Ambazonia’s struggle now requires moving beyond emotional unity appeals toward disciplined institutional coordination, strategic diplomacy, and collective accountability.
Closing Reflection for Readers
The debate between Comrade Francis Mbah and Comrade MM is less about personalities and more about direction. As the struggle matures, Ambazonians must decide whether unity remains a slogan—or becomes a functioning structure capable of advancing national objectives.
The future of the struggle depends less on past claims and more on present coordination, discipline, and strategic clarity.
The Independentistnews Eduaction desk
Leave feedback about this