False narative of a German reunification unveiled: Yaoundé Is French, Buea Was the German Capital

In 1901, Governor Jesko von Puttkamer moved the capital inland to Buea, on the slopes of Mount Cameroon. The relocation was motivated by climatic considerations and administrative convenience: Buea’s elevation offered a healthier environment for Europeans and facilitated inland control.

By The Independentist editorial Desk

For more than sixty years, La République du Cameroun has invoked a single historical claim to justify its political hold over Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia): that “reunification” took place because the two territories share a common German heritage. On the surface, this narrative appears to offer historical continuity. But a closer look at the colonial record reveals a significant contradiction, particularly regarding the choice of Yaoundé as capital.

Buea Was the German Capital

When Germany established its colony of Kamerun in 1884, the colonial administration was initially based in Douala. In 1901, Governor Jesko von Puttkamer moved the capital inland to Buea, on the slopes of Mount Cameroon. The relocation was motivated by climatic considerations and administrative convenience: Buea’s elevation offered a healthier environment for Europeans and facilitated inland control.

Buea became the official seat of German colonial administration, housing the governor’s residence, courts, barracks, and civil service offices. It functioned as the political and administrative heart of German Kamerun up to Germany’s defeat in World War I.

Simply put: Buea — not Yaoundé — was the capital of German Kamerun.

Yaoundé Was a French Colonial Creation

After Germany’s defeat in 1916, the territory of Kamerun was partitioned under League of Nations mandates. France took the larger, eastern portion and made Yaoundé the capital of its mandate. Britain governed the smaller, western portion — Southern Cameroons — through Nigeria and continued to administer from Buea.

Yaoundé’s elevation to capital status was entirely a French administrative decision. It reflected French colonial strategy and infrastructure, not German planning. Roads, railways, and administrative hierarchies were reoriented toward Yaoundé during the mandate period, laying the foundations for the modern centralized state that emerged after 1960.

The “Strategic Location” Argument

Supporters of Yaoundé’s continued role as capital often argue that its central location makes it a strategic administrative hub for the country. This argument is frequently presented as evidence of “pragmatism” or “continuity.”

However, this reasoning has no basis in the German colonial framework that is often invoked as the moral foundation of reunification. Yaoundé’s centrality was not a German construct, but rather a French colonial reconfiguration of the territory. The Germans never built their administrative system around Yaoundé; that was a French innovation introduced two decades after Germany lost the colony.

If reunification were genuinely guided by German heritage, Buea — not Yaoundé — would have remained the natural capital.

Post-Independence: A Rhetorical Trap

When French Cameroun gained independence in 1960 and Southern Cameroons joined in a federation the following year, Yaoundé’s political elite began to speak of “restoring German Kamerun.” Yet, if this were truly the aim, the capital would have logically reverted to Buea.

Instead, Yaoundé — a symbol of French administrative power — was retained as the capital of the newly enlarged state. The rhetoric of German heritage became a convenient historical veneer for what was, in reality, a continuation of French colonial geography and centralization.

Moral and Political Implications

This historical contradiction carries serious political implications. If La République du Cameroun is genuinely serious about honoring the German colonial framework as the basis of unification, there is only one logical step:
Close Yaoundé as the capital and move the capital back to Buea.

Anything less is a political compromise with French colonial legacies, not a return to German heritage. Buea was the capital of German Kamerun; Yaoundé was the capital of the French mandate. Maintaining Yaoundé perpetuates French colonial centralism, not historical restoration.

A Clearer Understanding of History

The debate over Yaoundé and Buea is not merely symbolic. It exposes the gap between rhetoric and historical reality in the official reunification narrative. A balanced understanding requires recognizing that the choice of Yaoundé as capital was never part of the German colonial design; it was a French decision that has shaped the modern political geography of Cameroon.

Until Buea is restored to its rightful place, the claim that reunification reflects a shared German heritage remains historically inconsistent. The story of Yaoundé and Buea illustrates how colonial decisions — and their reinterpretation — continue to shape political legitimacy in the present.