The Southern Cameroons did not fail to decolonize itself. It was failed by those entrusted with its decolonization. And any roadmap toward resolution must begin with that truth, not bury it under invoices and retainer agreements. Justice that requires the victims to pay for the crime scene investigation is not justice. It is merely a sophisticated continuation of abandonment.
By Ali Dan Ismael, Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
There is a dangerous intellectual trend now circulating in policy circles and advocacy platforms: a narrative that cleverly sanitizes Britain’s role in the Southern Cameroons catastrophe while quietly transferring the entire financial and moral burden of resolution onto the very people who were wronged.
The latest briefing document, packaged as a sober legal roadmap, presents itself as a breakthrough. But beneath the legal jargon and professional tone lies a deeply troubling implication: that the tragedy of Southern Cameroons is essentially the fault of Ambazonians themselves for not studying UN archives sooner.
Disturbingly, this narrative is now being aggressively promoted across social media spaces, with a certain Roland Fru publicly advocating this line of thinking and presenting it as strategic enlightenment. Instead, what is being circulated is a deeply flawed reinterpretation that shifts blame away from historical actors and onto the victims themselves. This is not merely flawed reasoning. It is historical laundering.
Britain’s Convenient Disappearance from the Crime Scene
Let us be clear. The Southern Cameroons did not wander into confusion by The Great Historical Escape: How Britain Is Being Cleared While Ambazonians Are Handed the Bill accident. It was administered by Britain under a United Nations trusteeship. Britain was the administering authority charged with guiding the territory safely to independence or lawful political status.
Instead, Britain hurriedly exited its responsibilities, bundled Southern Cameroons into a plebiscite with only two options—join Nigeria or join Cameroon—and then stepped away without ensuring a legally binding framework for the future. No treaty. No constitutional guarantees. No safeguards.
And now, decades later, after the region has suffered war, displacement, destruction of towns, economic collapse, and mass human rights abuses, the emerging narrative says: “The legal instrument was missing. Why didn’t Ambazonians notice earlier?” This argument borders on moral obscenity. Victims Are Now Asked to Finance Justice
The briefing document presents the next phase as a legal exercise costing between $750,000 and $1 million, beginning with a $100,000 legal assessment. In other words: The people whose territory was mishandled must now fund the legal investigation to prove that their mishandling occurred. The victims must pay to document the crime.
Britain, which administered the territory.
The United Nations, which supervised the process.
And Cameroon, which absorbed the territory without lawful completion of decolonization. All walk away financially untouched.
Meanwhile, refugees, internally displaced families, and communities destroyed by conflict are being asked to crowdfund international law firms charging $2,000 per hour. Justice has become a subscription service.
The Dangerous Rewriting of Responsibility
Perhaps the most disturbing claim in the document is this: The failure to identify the missing treaty for 65 years is a responsibility problem of Southern Cameroonians. This argument ignores reality.
Southern Cameroons in 1961 was emerging from colonial administration with limited institutional capacity. It relied on Britain, the administering authority, and the UN to ensure lawful completion of the process. Colonial powers do not hand over legal microscopes to newly decolonizing populations and say, “Check our paperwork.” They are responsible for lawful exit.
If a trustee mishandles trust property, responsibility lies with the trustee—not the beneficiary. Britain’s role cannot be erased simply because the paperwork error is discovered decades later.
Legal Strategy Must Not Become Moral Surrender
Yes, legal strategy matters. Yes, international law requires discipline and precision. Yes, emotional activism alone does not win cases. But legal professionalism must not evolve into historical surrender.
Ambazonians should not accept a narrative that quietly absolves Britain and the UN while presenting the population as negligent victims who must now pay to repair their own injustice. A legal roadmap that erases responsibility is not strategy. It is capitulation.
The Core Truth Remains
Southern Cameroons did not fail to decolonize itself. It was failed by those entrusted with its decolonization. And any roadmap toward resolution must begin with that truth, not bury it under invoices and retainer agreements. Justice that requires the victims to pay for the crime scene investigation is not justice. It is merely a sophisticated continuation of abandonment. And history will not be fooled.
Ali Dan Ismael, Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
