Fellow Ambazonians,
The call for unity in our liberation struggle is legitimate. No serious Ambazonian disputes that fragmentation weakens our collective capacity. But unity cannot be achieved through slogans, ultimatums, or selective amnesia. It must be built on structure, accountability, and truth. It is important to state this clearly: calls for unity are not new, and they have not been ignored for lack of effort.
On numerous occasions, Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako publicly and formally worked toward unity and coordination. He advocated dialogue, institutional convergence, and collective frameworks—often at significant political and personal cost. Instead of being supported, these efforts were repeatedly met with abuse, delegitimization, and obstruction by the very actors who today proclaim unity as an emergency slogan.
The record matters.
One clear example is the Swiss-led mediation process and the attempt to establish the Ambazonia Consultative Team (ACT) as a coordination mechanism. ACT was not imposed; it was proposed as a structured, inclusive platform to harmonize positions and present a coherent Ambazonian voice. The process failed not because of lack of opportunity, but because it was actively sabotaged.
Those who undermined ACT included factions associated with Sisiku Julius Ayuk Tabe, as well as prominent figures such as Boh Herbert and Ayaba Cho Lucas. These actors rejected coordination when it required compromise, discipline, and shared authority. Today, some of the same voices invoke “unity” while offering no explanation for their earlier refusal to collaborate under agreed frameworks.
Unity cannot be credible without historical honesty.
Ambazonia’s challenge is therefore not a lack of unity rhetoric, but a persistent refusal by certain actors to submit to collective institutional discipline unless they control the outcome. This pattern—rejecting coordination yesterday and demanding unity today—has done real damage to the struggle.
It must also be said: battlefield sacrifice, diplomatic engagement, political administration, and international advocacy are not competing sources of legitimacy. Successful liberation movements succeed because these fronts are integrated under civilian political authority, not pitted against one another. Discrediting dialogue, mediation, or institutional processes as weakness is neither revolutionary nor strategic—it is destructive.
Calls for ultimatums, especially when issued without mandate, structure, or enforcement legitimacy, risk deepening fragmentation rather than resolving it. Unity imposed by moral pressure or threat is not unity; it is coercion, and it inevitably collapses.
If collaboration is to be real, it must be structured, not emotional. That requires: A legitimate coordination framework accepted by all parties. Clear rules for representation and decision-making. Civilian political oversight of armed resistance. Mechanisms for accountability and dispute resolution. Respect for past efforts, not erasure of their sabotage
The diaspora is not the enemy, nor is it a substitute for authority. It is a resource that must be organized, not shamed. Likewise, freedom fighters on the ground deserve coordination and protection from factional manipulation—not shifting unity slogans.
Ambazonia’s liberation will not be achieved by declaring final years or issuing ultimatums. Freedom is not delivered by calendars or rhetoric, but by institutional coherence, political maturity, and collective discipline. Unity remains essential. But unity without structure is chaos. And unity without honesty is hypocrisy.
Let us stop repeating the word “unity” while sabotaging its foundations. Let us build the frameworks that make collaboration unavoidable—not by force, but by function. Only then will Ambazonia speak with a voice the world can take seriously.
The Patriot MM
Leave feedback about this