The Mbuyoke Mandate: When Reform Fails and a People Begin to Ask Hard Questions

Once confidence collapses, the legal conversation changes. It moves from: “How do we improve the union?” To: “Is the union still repairable?” That shift is not primarily emotional. It is constitutional. Because unity ultimately rests on consent.

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

There comes a moment in long conflicts when the debate changes. At first, people ask for reform. Then they ask for fairness. Then they ask for protection. And eventually — when those seem unreachable — they begin to ask whether they still belong.

For many in Cameroon’s North-West and South-West Regions, events like those reported in Mbuyoke have deepened a painful realization: the issue may no longer be about decentralization or “special status.” It may be about self-determination. But what does that actually mean — legally, not emotionally?

The Right That Lives in International Law

Self-determination is not a slogan invented by activists. It is a principle written into the founding documents of modern international law. The United Nations Charter affirms that “all peoples” have the right to determine their political status. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights repeats that same promise.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights goes even further, calling the right “inalienable.” In simple terms, international law recognizes that peoples have a right to shape their own political future. But there is an important distinction.

The First Preference: Fix It From Within

International law strongly prefers what is called internal self-determination. That means meaningful autonomy, political participation, protection of identity, and equal treatment — all within an existing state. – Federalism. – Regional autonomy. – Decentralization. – Power-sharing.

These are the usual solutions. They allow a country to remain intact while giving its diverse communities breathing space. Territorial integrity — the principle that borders should not be easily broken — is deeply valued in international law. Secession is not the default remedy. It is the exception.

When the Exception Enters the Conversation

There is, however, a narrow doctrine in international law known as remedial secession. It is not written in one neat article of a treaty, but it has emerged from legal scholarship, international practice, and court opinions.

The doctrine suggests that separation may become arguable — not automatic, not guaranteed, but arguable — when four conditions converge: A distinct “people” can be identified. Internal self-determination has been persistently denied. Serious and sustained rights violations occur. All meaningful internal remedies have been exhausted.

This is a very high threshold. It is not triggered by dissatisfaction. It is not triggered by disagreement. It is triggered by prolonged breakdown.

The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on Kosovo, did not endorse a universal right to secede — but it also did not declare such declarations inherently unlawful. In doing so, it left space for exceptional cases. That space is narrow. But it exists.

Why the Debate Has Shifted

For years, many in the affected regions advocated reform within Cameroon — federal restructuring, stronger decentralization, meaningful autonomy. When reforms such as “Special Status” were introduced, some hoped they might open a path forward.

But in contexts where communities perceive ongoing insecurity, uneven justice, and limited structural change, confidence erodes.

Once confidence collapses, the legal conversation changes. It moves from: “How do we improve the union?” To: “Is the union still repairable?” That shift is not primarily emotional. It is constitutional. Because unity ultimately rests on consent.

Territorial Integrity and Its Condition

International law protects the territorial integrity of states. But it does so on an important condition: that the state represents all its peoples without discrimination and allows meaningful political participation.

The 1970 UN Friendly Relations Declaration makes this clear — territorial integrity is strongest when internal self-determination is respected. If internal inclusion functions, external separation loses its foundation. If internal inclusion collapses, the legal shield weakens. This is not revolutionary doctrine. It is built into the architecture of international law.

The Real Crossroads

The argument some now call the “Mbuyoke Mandate” is not simply about one village. It is about cumulative distrust. It reflects a belief among some that internal remedies have been tried and have failed.

Whether that belief is legally sufficient for remedial secession is not something that can be decided in newspaper columns. It would require international mediation, judicial review, or negotiated settlement.

But the fact that the argument has moved into legal doctrine — rather than protest rhetoric — tells us something important: This is no longer a debate about administrative reform. It is a debate about constitutional destiny.

The Peaceful Path

International law does not encourage violent rupture. If separation ever becomes part of serious consideration, it must proceed through peaceful means: Negotiation – Referendum under credible supervision – Regional or international mediation – Peaceful divorce is always preferable to permanent war.

The real question, then, is simple and profound: Can internal reform still restore trust? Or has that window closed? If reform regains credibility, unity survives. If reform remains hollow, separation arguments will continue to gain legal traction. In the end, borders are lines on maps. Nations are bonds of consent. And when consent fades, law — not force — becomes the only legitimate path forward.

Timothy Enongene
Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews