THE GUARDIAN POST AND THE CHRIS ANU CONTROVERSY: A DISPUTE OVER REPRESENTATION AND LEGITIMACY

Chris Anu remains a highly controversial figure within Ambazonian politics. Critics accuse him of poor leadership decisions, internal divisions, and actions that weakened certain armed groups, particularly in Lebialem.

By Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief The
Independentistnews

YAOUNDÉ 16 February 2026 – A recent report by The Guardian Post Newspaper, concerning a purported “memorandum” for dialogue sent to the Yaoundé authorities by Chris Anu has sparked renewed controversy within Ambazonian circles. For many observers within the movement, the coverage appeared less like neutral reporting and more like participation in an ongoing political contest over who legitimately speaks for the Southern Cameroons cause.

By describing Anu as a “separatist leader,” critics argue that the paper inadvertently amplifies a narrative that does not reflect current internal political realities within sections of the independence movement. To them, this risks reviving old leadership disputes at a time when many supporters are calling for clearer structures and unified representation.

The truth, as seen by many within the movement, lies in the evolution of its internal political structures over recent years. Supporters of the current leadership argue that Chris Anu has held no recognized mandate or authority within the reorganized structures of the movement since the major institutional shifts of 2024. From this perspective, presenting him today as a principal representative of Southern Cameroonians is misleading and risks confusing both local and international audiences.

The 2024 Restructuring: A Shift in Direction

Supporters of the current leadership maintain that the movement moved beyond fragmented leadership disputes following key institutional changes in 2024. After the passage of what supporters call the “Full Restoration Bill” in late 2023, the movement sought to transition from competing exile structures toward what proponents describe as a more institutionalized government framework.

This process reportedly involved efforts to revive political and traditional institutions such as the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly and the House of Chiefs, with the aim of placing political direction back into broader community and traditional leadership structures rather than leaving it solely in the hands of diaspora personalities and social media figures.

By the time the 2024–2025 Leaders’ Pact was concluded, supporters say the objective was to establish a more coordinated strategy focused on diplomatic engagement and local community stabilization. Within this framework, Chris Anu was not considered part of the recognized leadership. His earlier self-declared leadership claims, critics argue, failed to gain broad support among fighters on the ground or among communities most directly affected by the conflict.

A Contested Political Legacy

Chris Anu remains a highly controversial figure within Ambazonian politics. Critics accuse him of poor leadership decisions, internal divisions, and actions that weakened certain armed groups, particularly in Lebialem. Supporters, however, argue that he played a role during difficult stages of the movement and that internal disagreements are part of any liberation struggle.

What is clear is that his political trajectory has been marked by internal disputes, shifting alliances, and leadership struggles that left parts of the movement deeply divided. For many Ambazonians, fatigue with internal power struggles has grown alongside the humanitarian toll of the conflict itself.

Media Coverage and Government Strategy

Why then, critics ask, would a newspaper give significant attention to Anu’s memorandum? Some interpret this as part of a broader government strategy to encourage dialogue through figures seen as more flexible or open to negotiation. Others argue that media outlets simply report available developments without necessarily endorsing any side.

Within pro-independence circles, however, there is a persistent fear that authorities may attempt to engage figures perceived as lacking broad support in order to claim progress toward peace while avoiding engagement with actors seen as holding real influence on the ground.

Dialogue and Representation

One point on which many Ambazonians agree is that dialogue remains necessary, given the human cost of the conflict. However, disagreements persist over who should legitimately participate in such negotiations.

Supporters of the current leadership argue that any credible process must involve representatives who command real confidence among affected populations and armed groups. Others insist that broader inclusion, even of controversial figures, might help reduce tensions and open pathways to peace.

The Bottom Line

At its core, the controversy surrounding Chris Anu’s memorandum reflects a deeper and unresolved question within the Ambazonian struggle: who speaks for the people, and how can unity be achieved in a movement shaped by years of conflict, displacement, and internal division?

For many observers, the challenge now is not only about rejecting or endorsing particular personalities, but about building political legitimacy capable of leading both the struggle and eventual peace negotiations toward a future that restores dignity, stability, and hope to the people most affected.

In the end, any proposal—whether memorandum or negotiation—will only carry weight if it reflects the will and confidence of the people it claims to represent.

Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief The
Independentistnews