Letter to the Editor
Subject: Milan Atam and the Cost of Disunity
Sir,
Debates about unity in our struggle are not new, and they will continue for as long as the Ambazonian quest for self-determination remains unfinished. I agree that unity cannot come “at all cost,” because uniting with individuals or movements that have incompatible agendas can create deeper fractures rather than healing them. What concerns me, however, is the consistency with which Mr. Milan Atam adopts an anti-unity posture, even while presenting himself as a champion of cohesion.
It is important to acknowledge that Mr. Atam played a role in bringing movements together during the formation of SCACUF. Yet, once that platform slipped from his personal control, the tone changed dramatically. The discrediting of SCACUF’s leadership, the creation of competing entities, and the relentless effort to undermine structures that did not align with his authority left many observers questioning his true motives.
After the tragic abduction of our leaders in Nera Hotel, what Ambazonia needed most was stability and continuity. Instead, we saw new groups emerge—SCOOP among them—and an increasingly visible campaign to weaken the Interim Government. Whether intentional or not, these actions deepened divisions at a moment when unity of purpose was essential for survival.
A similar concern arises with respect to the Swiss-led facilitation effort. Whatever one thinks of its merits or limitations, it was undeniably a major international opportunity. President Sako and the Interim Government extended invitations to all stakeholders, including Mr. Atam. His absence—followed by open opposition to the platform—did not reflect a desire for collective progress. Yet, paradoxically, he has appeared at conferences organized by federalist platforms, raising legitimate questions about consistency.
To be clear, no leader, including Mr. Atam, should be demonized. Every Ambazonian has a role to play, and disagreements are part of any liberation movement. But unity cannot be built on selective participation, shifting loyalties, or the expectation that all Ambazonians must bow to one man’s agenda. True unity requires humility, mutual respect, and the willingness to work within existing platforms—even when we do not control them.
Our people deserve a movement that learns from the past, reduces fragmentation, and prioritizes the collective good over personal influence. That is the unity we should strive for—principled, inclusive, and focused on liberation, not ego.
Respectfully,
Ghainwi Akamentsu
Leave feedback about this