Issa Tchiroma announced that before heading to the Savannah Zone, he sought and received permission from his “friend” Chris Anu.
By The Independentist Editorial Desk
A few days ago, during the October 12 political selection exercise organized by la République du Cameroun, Issa Tchiroma made a public declaration in Bamenda, in the Savannah Zone, that has shaken many observers. Standing boldly before his audience, Tchiroma announced that before heading to the Savannah Zone, he sought and received permission from his “friend” Chris Anu.
Yes — the same Chris Anu who once called himself a comrade and anchored programs on ABS, but who recently resigned amid legal problems in the United States.
For those who have been following events closely, this revelation is not entirely surprising. Chris Anu himself has previously admitted to communicating with officials of la République du Cameroun. Even more troubling, he publicly declared that Ambazonia “cannot be a country.” This statement was not taken out of context; it is documented and widely known within the movement. It exposed, in his own words, a political shift away from the liberation objectives he once claimed to defend.
Now, with Tchiroma openly boasting about coordinating with Anu before making moves in occupied territory, the puzzle pieces fit. It confirms what Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako has consistently maintained: before anyone who once held leadership positions departs, there must be political and operational disarmament. There can be no private back-channels with the enemy while pretending to speak for the Ambazonian people.
This pattern is not limited to one individual. Irene Ngwa, Kizito Elad, Dr. Abongwa, Emmanuel Tita, Amos Tumenta, Elvis Kometa, Ivo Tapang, Mark Baretta, Atam Millan, Dr Epa, and Chris Ajua have all, in various ways, been associated with parallel structures, unauthorized negotiations, or channels of communication with la République du Cameroun. These are not isolated incidents. They form part of a broader web of private networks, information leaks, and deliberate acts that have often undermined the collective front of the Ambazonian liberation struggle.
These back-channel communications explain much of the sabotage, confusion, and coordinated misinformation campaigns that have targeted the legitimate leadership and institutions of the revolution. Instead of building cohesion, these actors chose fragmentation. Instead of standing with the people, they engaged in secret talks with the occupier while presenting themselves as revolutionary voices.
Today’s revelations vindicate Dr. Sako’s position. For years he has warned — often at great personal cost — that without internal discipline and the disarming of political actors who choose private gain over public liberation, the struggle would face betrayal from within. The Tchiroma–Anu connection, now confirmed in broad daylight, is not an isolated scandal; it is a window into a deeper structure that was working against the aspirations of the Ambazonian people.
This is not about personal grudges. It is about political clarity, national security, and the protection of Ambazonia’s liberation architecture. Those who secretly communicate with the occupier while undermining the sovereignty project must be held accountable, not romanticized as “alternative voices.” The Ambazonian people deserve transparency, not deception.
History will remember this moment as one where truth cut through the fog of manipulation. Dr. Sako’s call for internal disarmament before departure was not division — it was foresight.
The Independentist Editorial Desk
