History is not learned in order to be repeated; it is learned in order to be corrected. A wise person learns from his own mistakes; a wiser person learns from the mistakes of others. Mandela’s experience offers a powerful lesson: prisoners should not negotiate for free people.
18 January 2026
Abdulkarim Ali
Kondengui Central Prison
It is a non sequitur to invoke Nelson Mandela as positive proof that prisoners should negotiate on behalf of free people. In fact, Mandela’s case illustrates precisely why such a claim does not logically follow.
Whether one is incarcerated or free, favourable public opinion is an invaluable political asset. I have long believed—and continue to believe—that La République du Cameroun will eventually be compelled to negotiate with Southern Cameroons. However, as I argued in my previous reflections on dialogue and negotiations, a prisoner like myself cannot—and should not—negotiate the political fate of a nation.
At best, incarcerated leaders may negotiate for their own freedom and offer counsel to those who are free. Only free people should negotiate the political future of a nation. This position does not exclude imprisoned leaders from the process entirely; it simply recognises that incarcerated individuals cannot sign binding agreements or make sovereign decisions on behalf of a people.
Without question, Nelson Mandela was a hero not only to South Africans but to the world. He remains an enduring inspiration to all who seek freedom. However, conflating his moral resilience with the practical freedom to negotiate from behind bars—after 27 years of profound dehumanisation and isolation—is akin to conflating chalk with cheese.
My questions are not driven by curiosity but by political fact, particularly as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), under Julius Malema, continue to confront the unresolved question of economic liberation:
Why did Nelson Mandela stay in the Oppenheimer residence immediately after his release? Why did Nelson Mandela divorce Winnie Madikizela-Mandela? Why were Black political parties excluded from the negotiations? Why did the Freedom Charter fail to protect Black South Africans economically? Why did Nelson Mandela repeatedly visit London? Why does Orania still exist?
Questions 3, 4, and 6 are particularly consequential for the Southern Cameroons question.
Q3: Negotiations such as CODESA involved the ANC and the National Party, among others. However, several Black political movements—notably the Pan-Africanist Congress—boycotted the process due to fundamental disagreements. The negotiations prioritised consensus between dominant actors, often sidelining smaller but ideologically significant groups. It is reasonable to infer that Mandela was constrained—or guided—by the occupiers regarding which voices were deemed “acceptable.”
Q4: While the Freedom Charter promised equality and rights, it failed to address structural economic injustice or ensure meaningful redistribution of land and wealth. The persistence of inequality today is evidence of this failure. This is precisely the terrain on which the EFF now struggles. Twenty-seven years of incarceration is sufficient to weaken even the strongest internal resolve—regardless of public declarations to the contrary. I say this not theoretically; I have been incarcerated for nearly four years, and I understand the psychological toll.
Q6: Orania remains an Afrikaner separatist enclave—a living relic of apartheid-era privilege. Its continued existence reflects unresolved debates about land, identity, and economic power in post-apartheid South Africa. Consider, for comparison, clusters such as Bokwangho, Victoria, or Up Station.
Whether we speak of Nelson Mandela or Kwame Nkrumah, negotiations conducted on behalf of free people before the negotiator’s own liberation amount, in effect, to a capitulation to entrenched capitalist and colonial structures.
Plausible Pathways Forward
a) Free people should initiate negotiations, secure the release of incarcerated leaders, and then—together as free people—negotiate the nation’s future.
b) Incarcerated leaders should provide counsel and strategic guidance, while free people negotiate on behalf of the nation.
History is not learned in order to be repeated; it is learned in order to be corrected. A wise person learns from his own mistakes; a wiser person learns from the mistakes of others. Mandela’s experience offers a powerful lesson: prisoners should not negotiate for free people.
I therefore argue that negotiating from prison is not only complex but strategically futile in the long run. The viable pathway remains dialogue, unity, and coordinated action among free Southern Cameroonians. God Bless Southern Cameroons.
Abdulkarim Ali
Leave feedback about this