There were originally two Cameroons. And they believe those two political identities remain historically distinguishable to this day. Whether history ultimately moves toward separation, renewed federation, or another negotiated arrangement, one reality continues to haunt the conflict: A promise made in 1961 was never universally believed to have been honoured.
By Uchiba Nelson The Independentist News Contributor
The Colonial Background Before the Plebiscite
To understand the emotions surrounding the 1961 plebiscite, one must first understand the political atmosphere inherited from British colonial administration in Southern Cameroons. Under British rule, loyalty to the Crown and obedience to colonial administrative authority were treated as matters of political discipline and state order. The colonial system rewarded compliance and often punished resistance severely.
Within this wider imperial framework, administrators such as John Macpherson symbolised the authority of the British Crown across British West Africa. Whether through direct administration, indirect rule, political manipulation, economic pressure, or constitutional engineering, the colonial structure maintained strict control over African territories and political elites.
Critics of British colonial policy argue that Southern Cameroons political actors who challenged imperial preferences or threatened administrative stability often faced political isolation, suppression, intimidation, or marginalisation.
The Fear of Defying Imperial Authority
By the late 1950s and early 1960s, Southern Cameroons politicians operated under enormous geopolitical pressure. Britain was eager to decolonise while preserving regional stability and protecting strategic interests. The United Nations was pushing for rapid decolonisation. Nigeria was moving toward full independence. La République du Cameroun had already achieved independence from France in 1960. Southern Cameroons elites therefore found themselves trapped inside a narrow political corridor designed largely by external powers.
According to many Ambazonian historians and nationalists, there existed an unspoken fear among local political leaders that openly rejecting British-managed transition frameworks could attract political punishment, diplomatic isolation, or loss of British support and legitimacy. Some argue that the colonial establishment made it clear — directly or indirectly — that total independence for Southern Cameroons was not the preferred option.
The Political Cost of Resistance
In colonial systems, punishment did not always require prisons or executions.Punishment often came through political sidelining. Removal from influence. Loss of administrative backing. Economic pressure. Media isolation. Diplomatic abandonment. Character assassination. Withdrawal of institutional support. Within British imperial governance, maintaining order and strategic continuity frequently took priority over local nationalist aspirations. This broader atmosphere shaped the calculations of Southern Cameroons political elites during the plebiscite era.
Why Southern Cameroons Rejected Nigeria
When the British organised the plebiscite under United Nations supervision, Southern Cameroons was presented with only two options: integration with Nigeria or union with La République du Cameroun. There was no independence option. Yet many forget why large numbers of Southern Cameroonians rejected Nigeria.
First, there was psychological and social resentment arising from the experience many Southern Cameroonians had within the Nigerian federation. Complaints of discrimination, bullying, exploitation, extortion, and disrespect toward their dignity had created deep unease among parts of the population.
Second, Southern Cameroonians did not want to become merely another province or region absorbed into a much larger Nigerian structure. Many feared complete political dilution and the permanent loss of their identity and autonomy.
Third — and most importantly — La République du Cameroun presented the idea of a federation of two states of equal status. That promise changed history. The Promise of Equal Partnership From 1954 to 1961, Southern Cameroons already exercised a meaningful degree of self-government under British administration.
The territory had its own parliament. Its own Prime Minister. Its own governmental institutions. Its own political identity. Its own democratic structures. Southern Cameroonians therefore approached the plebiscite not as a people seeking to dissolve themselves, but as a people negotiating a partnership. The understanding promoted to many citizens was not annexation. It was federation. Two states. Equal status. Two peoples entering a union while preserving their respective identities and institutions. That was the political psychology behind the vote.
Foumban and the Collapse of Trust
Critics of the post-1961 arrangement argue that what followed at Foumban was not genuine constitutional negotiation between equals, but the gradual absorption of Southern Cameroons into the already existing structure of La République du Cameroun.To many Ambazonian thinkers today, Foumban represents the beginning of what they describe as constitutional deception.
They argue that Southern Cameroons entered discussions expecting a negotiated federation, only to discover later that the foundations of equality were steadily dismantled. Over time, the federal structure weakened. Then came centralisation. Then came the abolition of the federation in 1972. Then came the reduction of Southern Cameroonians into administrative provinces. Then later into the labels “Northwest” and “Southwest.” To many activists, that transformation represented not integration between equals, but political erasure.
From Southern Cameroonians to “Anglophones”
One of the deepest grievances among many Ambazonian intellectuals is the replacement of a national-political identity with a linguistic minority label. Southern Cameroonians once understood themselves as a distinct political community with defined historical boundaries and institutions. But over time, the identity became reframed merely as “Anglophone.” Critics argue that this linguistic reduction diluted the original political question.
Instead of discussing two historical Cameroons, the discourse shifted toward minority language rights inside a unitary state. That shift fundamentally changed the terrain of the debate. For many Ambazonian nationalists, the issue was never simply language. It was sovereignty, constitutional status, historical identity, and self-government.
The Federation Debate Today
This is why many Ambazonian hardliners reject current calls for decentralisation, special status, regionalism, or even renewed federalism within La République du Cameroun. Their argument is straightforward: If Southern Cameroons rejected becoming a province of Nigeria in 1961, why should it permanently accept becoming provinces or regions under La République du Cameroun?
To them, returning to federation after decades of conflict and constitutional breakdown appears irrational because they believe the original federal agreement was already violated and dismantled. Others, however, maintain that some form of negotiated federal arrangement could still preserve peace, coexistence, and regional stability. The debate therefore remains deeply emotional, historical, and unresolved.
The Dangerous Language of Contempt
At the same time, this conversation must remain responsible. Terms such as “anglofools” and sweeping attacks against entire communities risk replacing political argument with contempt and humiliation. Such rhetoric may energise supporters emotionally, but it can also deepen division, tribal hostility, and long-term bitterness. Historical grievances deserve serious discussion. But serious discussion requires discipline, evidence, and clarity. Not dehumanisation.
The Unfinished Question
What remains undeniable is that the constitutional relationship between Southern Cameroons and La République du Cameroun remains one of the most contested political questions in modern African history. For many Ambazonians, the core belief remains unchanged: There were originally two Cameroons. And they believe those two political identities remain historically distinguishable to this day. Whether history ultimately moves toward separation, renewed federation, or another negotiated arrangement, one reality continues to haunt the conflict: A promise made in 1961 was never universally believed to have been honoured.
Uchiba Nelson The Independentist News Contributor
