Tchiroma’s Federalist Manifesto: A Rehearsal of Old Scripts in a New Strategic Era

Issa Tchiroma’s federalist manifesto is less a visionary blueprint than a strategic miscalculation. It seeks to revive a discredited constitutional model without addressing the legal, historical, and geopolitical realities that define the conflict today.

By The Independentist Political Desk

Issa Tchiroma has formally unveiled what amounts to his campaign manifesto, centered on a proposed return to federalism as a supposed solution to the long-running conflict between French Cameroon and Ambazonia. He presents federalism as a corrective mechanism to “errors of independence,” framing it as a bold political offering to both the francophone electorate and the international community.

The core pillars of Tchiroma’s manifesto are clear: he promises to release Ambazonian detainees, declare natural resources national property, and negotiate a new federal structure that would, in his view, restore unity while addressing historical grievances. He is positioning himself as the political figure capable of “healing the nation” through what he calls a federal renaissance.

At face value, this strategy has a certain internal logic. It speaks to francophone voters nostalgic for the early years of the federation and appeals to diplomats who often search for constitutional formulas to manage postcolonial conflicts. Federalism, after all, was the original framework that joined the two territories in 1961. But this manifesto is built on fragile legal and political foundations. It avoids the central issue of sovereignty and relies on the same rhetorical architecture that underpinned the 1961 Foumban arrangement — one that led to annexation, not partnership.

Ambazonia’s legal and historical position is clear. As the former UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons, it achieved self-government in 1954 and was internationally recognized as a separate political entity. The 1961 UN-organized plebiscite denied Ambazonians the third option of full independence, forcing a binary choice between joining Nigeria or the already independent Republic of Cameroon. Dr. John Ngu Foncha, elected by the people of Southern Cameroons, entered negotiations with Ahmadou Ahidjo — a French-installed autocrat who had never faced a free election.

No treaty of union was ever signed. The federal structure was unilaterally dissolved in 1972 through a fraudulent referendum, violating international law and extinguishing the last pretense of a voluntary union. Tchiroma’s manifesto does not confront this history. Instead, it echoes the old language of Biya’s Communal Liberalism while bypassing the fundamental question of French Cameroon’s continued subordination to Paris through the Accords de Coopération.

His proposal to release detainees, while politically attractive, is framed as a concession rather than a legal duty. Thousands of Ambazonians have been illegally detained, tortured, or summarily executed. Their release is not a bargaining chip — it is a prerequisite for any legitimate political discussion.

His plan to declare all natural resources “national” before defining the political structure of the state mirrors the colonial strategy of 1961: seize Ambazonian resources first, then define governance terms later. For over six decades, oil, timber, and mineral wealth from Ambazonian territory have been siphoned off to sustain a centralized elite in Yaoundé, while the producing regions remain systematically underdeveloped. This is not a vision of federalism; it is the continuation of extraction under a new constitutional label.

Perhaps most critically, Tchiroma’s manifesto assumes that French Cameroon is a sovereign state capable of entering into a federal partnership. This is demonstrably untrue. Yaoundé remains entangled in the colonial web of French control — from monetary dependence through the CFA franc to military presence and diplomatic tutelage. A sovereign Ambazonia cannot enter into a “federal” relationship with a polity that has not itself achieved full sovereignty. Any such step would amount to re-annexation.

The geopolitical context has also shifted dramatically since the 1960s. Under President Donald Trump, the United States has embraced a transactional foreign policy that prioritizes bilateral interests, sovereignty, and clear strategic value over moral appeals or abstract multilateralism.

President Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako, leading the Ambazonian government-in-exile, has positioned Ambazonia to engage within this new diplomatic framework. Rather than presenting itself as a supplicant, Ambazonia is asserting itself as a sovereign geopolitical actor capable of offering value — particularly in energy, counter-terrorism cooperation, and regional stabilization — to Washington and other international partners.

This stands in sharp contrast to Tchiroma’s federalist campaign. While he rehearses mid-20th-century political formulas, Ambazonia is navigating a 21st-century diplomatic landscape. In a transactional era, Ambazonia’s sovereignty is not a peripheral issue — it is the foundation for strategic partnerships.

The Ambazonian population has also changed. Eight years of war and political awakening have produced a generation that is historically literate, politically conscious, and unwilling to return to paternalistic arrangements dressed up as federalism. The days when speeches in Yaoundé could set Ambazonian political agendas are over. Any negotiation must be grounded on equality of sovereigns, not nostalgic promises of a refashioned union.

Issa Tchiroma’s federalist manifesto is therefore less a visionary blueprint than a strategic miscalculation. It seeks to revive a discredited constitutional model without addressing the legal, historical, and geopolitical realities that define the conflict today.

Ambazonia’s leadership under Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako has moved beyond that paradigm, aligning with an emerging global order that rewards sovereignty, clarity, and strategic value. If Tchiroma’s campaign is to have any credibility beyond Yaoundé’s echo chambers, it must confront this new reality rather than recycle the failed formulas of the past.

The Independentist Political Desk