History often judges conflicts not only by the actions of governments and armed groups, but also by the conduct of intellectuals, journalists, and institutions that either challenged or enabled destructive policies.
By Lester Maddox Guest Contributor, The Independentist News
Bamenda – 14 May 2026 — For nearly a decade, the Cameroon News Agency (CNA) dismissed the Ambazonian conflict as a doomed rebellion destined for military defeat. Its reporting frequently echoed the language and assumptions of the Yaoundé establishment, portraying the war largely through the lens of “terrorism,” “banditry,” and “criminal separatism,” while paying insufficient attention to the deeper political roots of the crisis in the former British Southern Cameroons. Today, however, something has changed.
In recent months, CNA’s editorial tone has shifted noticeably. The outlet has begun cautiously acknowledging what many observers on the ground have long argued: that the military approach has failed, state authority is collapsing in large portions of the English-speaking regions, and insecurity has now penetrated even the heavily protected administrative zones of Bamenda’s Up Station. This late awakening raises a painful question: if sections of the Cameroonian media establishment had reported the conflict honestly from the beginning, could thousands of lives have been saved?
According to several humanitarian estimates and advocacy groups, tens of thousands of people have died since the conflict escalated in 2017, while hundreds of thousands have been displaced internally or forced into exile. Entire villages have been destroyed. Schools have collapsed. Economic life across large parts of the Northwest and Southwest has been shattered. Yet throughout the most critical years of the conflict, much of the dominant state-aligned media narrative focused less on understanding the causes of the war and more on defending the image of the state.
The Media and the Protection of Power
The role of the press during conflict is not merely to repeat official communiqués. Journalism exists to question power, investigate abuses, and provide citizens with enough truth to prevent national catastrophe. In the early stages of the Anglophone crisis, lawyers, teachers, civil society groups, and ordinary citizens repeatedly warned that the excessive use of force would radicalize the population. Those warnings were often dismissed or marginalized.
Instead of rigorously investigating allegations of village burnings, extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, torture allegations, and the growing militarization of the conflict, many media institutions chose the safer path of alignment with official narratives. Whether motivated by political pressure, financial dependency, fear of censorship, or institutional survival, the outcome was the same: a public shield was created around a failing military strategy.
By reducing the conflict to a security problem rather than a political dispute rooted in colonial history, constitutional grievances, identity, and state centralization, the media helped sustain the illusion that military victory was achievable. That illusion prolonged the war.
The Price of Silence
Had the realities on the ground been confronted honestly in 2016 and 2017, the trajectory of the conflict might have been very different. An independent and courageous press could have pressured authorities toward genuine dialogue before armed resistance became entrenched. A more balanced national conversation could have forced earlier international mediation.
Serious reporting on the humanitarian consequences of the conflict could have mobilized stronger diplomatic intervention before the crisis descended into full-scale destruction. Instead, years were lost while both civilians and combatants paid the price.
Today, even some voices once aligned with the dominant narrative appear unable to deny the obvious reality: despite enormous military expenditure and years of operations, the conflict remains unresolved, insecurity continues to spread, and public confidence in state authority has deteriorated significantly across much of the region.
A Late Recognition of Reality
CNA’s evolving tone is not meaningless. In fact, it may reflect a broader realization within parts of the Cameroonian establishment that the conflict cannot be solved militarily. But recognition without accountability remains incomplete. For years, many Ambazonians felt abandoned not only by the state, but also by media institutions that they believed ignored their suffering, minimized their grievances, or caricatured their resistance. That memory will not disappear easily.
The tragedy of the Anglophone conflict is not only that so many lives were lost. It is that numerous opportunities existed to prevent the catastrophe from reaching this level. Those opportunities were squandered by political arrogance, institutional denial, and the failure of critical national voices to speak truth when it mattered most.
The Lesson for History
History often judges conflicts not only by the actions of governments and armed groups, but also by the conduct of intellectuals, journalists, and institutions that either challenged or enabled destructive policies. The growing shift in public discourse surrounding the Ambazonian conflict suggests that the official narrative which dominated the early years of the war is no longer sustainable. Reality has overtaken propaganda. And while truth may arrive late, it eventually arrives nonetheless.
Lester Maddox Guest Contributor, The Independentist News
