Dr. DAVID MAKONGO: CALLS FOR DIALOGUE WITH AYUK TABE, WHILE REQUESTING AN ANGLOPHONE VICE-PRESIDENT UNDER BIYA?

Dr. David Makongo’s position therefore requires a direct answer: If the goal is to actualise Ambazonia’s independence, how would an Anglophone vice-president of Cameroon help achieve it?

By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief
Independentist News

Buy books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=martin+mungwa&crid=10ER0U8RVFECO&sprefix=%2Caps%2C289&ref=nb_sb_ss_recent_3_0_recent

YAOUNDÉ – 11 October 2026 – Dr. David Makongo needs to clarify the political destination he is advocating. As a supporter of Sisiku Ayuk Tabe, whom Ambazonia’s independence movement recognises as its former president, Makongo advocates dialogue between Ayuk Tabe and Paul Biya. Yet he also calls for Biya to appoint an “Anglophone vice-president” of Cameroon. These proposals raise a fundamental question: Is the objective an independent Ambazonia, or greater Anglophone representation within Cameroon?

The distinction is central to the Restoration Struggle. For those committed to Ambazonia’s independence, the objective is to give practical effect to the declaration of restoration made on 1 October 2017. A senior appointment in Yaoundé would pursue a different political outcome. Makongo describes Cameroon as a patient on life support. He acknowledges that appointing an Anglophone vice-president would not cure corruption, injustice or failed governance, and identifies accountable leadership, justice, inclusive dialogue and strong institutions as the necessary remedies.

That argument raises a question of its own: What, precisely, would another appointment accomplish within the system he describes as fundamentally broken? An appointment might improve representation. It might also be proposed as an interim measure. But neither possibility explains how it would advance the independence objective. If Makongo sees a connection, he should spell it out.

Calling for dialogue is insufficient without explaining its purpose. Would negotiations address separation and sovereignty, or seek a more inclusive political arrangement within Cameroon? Both are political proposals, but they lead to different destinations.

Yaoundé’s Anglophone Card: The Historical Lesson

The political establishment in Yaoundé has repeatedly elevated prominent Anglophone figures while the fundamental grievances of the former Southern Cameroons remained unresolved. Such appointments can confer influence on individuals, but they do not, by themselves, secure a people’s constitutional rights or determine their political future. The careers of John Ngu Foncha and Solomon Tandeng Muna illustrate this distinction.

Foncha became vice-president of the Federal Republic of Cameroon following the establishment of the federation in 1961. He also served as prime minister of West Cameroon until Augustine Ngom Jua succeeded him in 1965. Muna replaced Foncha as federal vice-president in 1970. These were separate transitions involving different offices.

Foncha’s resignation from the CPDM in 1990, accompanied by his public expression of disillusionment with the treatment of the former Southern Cameroons, underscored the distance between holding high office and securing the political safeguards he had envisaged.

Muna, meanwhile, occupied the vice-presidency before later serving as president of the National Assembly following the abolition of the federal system in 1972. His career shows that an Anglophone politician could hold prestigious national office even as the constitutional framework of the federation disappeared.

These histories do not prove that every Anglophone appointment is meaningless. They establish a more precise point: the elevation of an individual is no guarantee of constitutional security, collective political rights or the resolution of a people’s grievances. The abolition of the federal system in 1972 remains the decisive warning. Titles and appointments cannot substitute for enforceable political guarantees.

Anyone proposing an Anglophone vice-president today must therefore explain what powers, safeguards and political outcomes would accompany the office. For an advocate associated with Ambazonia’s independence movement, a further explanation is necessary: How would that office advance sovereignty?

We Are Not Fighting for a Place at the Eating Table

The most troubling possibility is that a struggle for national liberation could be redirected towards securing a more favourable position within the existing state. For supporters of the Restoration Struggle, the declaration of 1 October 2017 established the objective they now seek to actualise: an independent Ambazonia. That commitment cannot be fulfilled simply by appointing an Anglophone to senior office or distributing more positions among Anglophone politicians.

We are not fighting to sit at the eating table in Yaoundé. We are fighting for our country’s sovereignty. An Anglophone vice-president would hold office within the Cameroonian state. The appointment would not, by itself, recognise Ambazonia’s independence, transfer sovereignty to its people or settle the dispute over the territory’s political status.

Even if the office brought meaningful influence or improved representation, its value would have to be assessed on those terms. It should not be presented as equivalent to independence. The people committed to this struggle seek more than a change of personnel at the top of Cameroon’s government. Their claim concerns the political status of their territory and their right to determine its future. Replacing that objective with the pursuit of an appointment would confuse access to power with sovereignty.

Dialogue Requires a Defined Objective

Dialogue can provide a peaceful route towards resolving a conflict over sovereignty. But credible negotiations require a clear objective, a legitimate mandate and an agenda that addresses the underlying dispute.

If Makongo proposes dialogue between Biya and Ayuk Tabe as a route to an independent Ambazonia, he should explain how sovereignty and self-determination would be placed on the negotiating agenda. If his preferred outcome is an Anglophone vice-president, institutional reform or a more inclusive arrangement within Cameroon, he should state that position openly.

If he considers an appointment a temporary confidence-building measure, he should explain its limits and how it would support subsequent negotiations. An interim proposal still needs a defined relationship to the final objective. The central question remains: Does Makongo seek an independent Ambazonia, or a Cameroon in which Anglophones hold a greater share of political power?

The language of dialogue, inclusion and representation cannot resolve that distinction on its own. Supporting Ayuk Tabe does not automatically establish Makongo’s negotiating position. Nor does proposing an appointment necessarily prove that he has abandoned independence. The apparent tension between these positions does, however, require a clear public explanation. The issue is political consistency. It deserves scrutiny without substituting personal labels for an examination of the proposals themselves.

Makongo Should Clarify His Position

Those who advocate negotiations concerning Ambazonia’s future should explain the outcome they seek and the authority under which they propose to pursue it. Support for a prominent leader cannot replace a mandate from the people whose future is at stake.

Makongo should answer three questions. First, what outcome does he want dialogue between Biya and Ayuk Tabe to produce? Second, what would an Anglophone vice-president accomplish that previous senior Anglophone appointments failed to secure? Third, how would that proposal advance—or otherwise relate to—the independence objective?

These questions are reasonable. They concern the substance of his proposals and their consequences for a struggle whose supporters have endured profound losses. The people deserve more than appealing language about dialogue and inclusion. They deserve clarity about the political future being pursued in their name.

Foncha and Muna offer a historical warning against confusing the advancement of individuals with the fulfilment of collective political aspirations. Their experience should prompt closer examination of any proposal that presents an Anglophone title in Yaoundé as an answer to the Southern Cameroons question.

For those committed to the declaration of restoration made on 1 October 2017, sovereignty remains the destination. Any proposal for accommodation within Cameroon must be explained honestly and assessed against that commitment.

Dr. David Makongo’s position therefore requires a direct answer: If the goal is to actualise Ambazonia’s independence, how would an Anglophone vice-president of Cameroon help achieve it?

Buy books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=martin+mungwa&crid=10ER0U8RVFECO&sprefix=%2Caps%2C289&ref=nb_sb_ss_recent_3_0_recent

By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief
Independentist News