The Ambazonian Question cannot—and must not—appear on any “federalist” negotiating table. It is a matter of international law, historical rectification, and human survival. To reduce it to internal reform under a new Yaoundé presidency is to perpetuate the very fraud that began in 1961.
By Dr. Martin Mungwa
Commissioned Secretary for Communications & Diplomacy Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia (in exile)
Introduction: A False Premise for Dialogue
Professor Patrice Nganang’s analysis, “Issa Tchiroma Bakary and the Ambazonian Question,” assumes that the Ambazonian issue remains within the internal political spectrum of “federalism” in Cameroon.That assumption collapses both legally and morally. The Ambazonian Question is not a constitutional reform agenda within La République du Cameroun. It is a decolonization dispute arising from a breach of international trust, a fraudulent union, and a war of resistance declared by Yaoundé on November 30, 2017. Any framework that imagines Issa Tchiroma Bakary—or any successor to Paul Biya—can “negotiate” Ambazonia back into a federal fold betrays both historical truth and pragmatic reality.
The Historical Fraud: A Union That Never Existed
Contrary to the narrative that Cameroon “once had” a federation which can be restored, history tells a different story. The United Nations Resolution 1608 (XV) of April 21, 1961 required three signatories—the United Kingdom, the Southern Cameroons, and La République du Cameroun—to negotiate and sign a treaty of union. No such treaty was ever signed. The Southern Cameroons delegation led by John Ngu Foncha, S.T. Muna, and Ngom Jua was deceived into believing that a voluntary federation would follow independence.
La République du Cameroun, under French tutelage, declared independence on January 1, 1960, as a distinct UN Trust Territory with defined borders. The Southern Cameroons, administered separately under the United Kingdom, voted for independence by joining the already independent La République, not for assimilation into it. That “joining” required a treaty of equals, not an annexation. Ahmadou Ahidjo’s 1961 “Federal Constitution” was unilaterally drafted in Yaoundé, never ratified by the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly, and never registered with the UN as a lawful instrument.
By May 20, 1972, Ahidjo abolished the so-called federation through a fraudulent referendum held under occupation—thus committing a constitutional coup d’état. The result was not the failure of federalism, but the death of legality. Southern Cameroons was not federated—it was annexed, a reality later consolidated by Paul Biya’s 1984 constitutional change renaming the state simply La République du Cameroun, the pre-1961 name, effectively erasing the union.
The Post–World War II Context: The Real Origin of African Independence
It must also be clearly stated that all independence movements in Africa were born out of the global realignment that followed the Second World War, not from the so-called “Scramble for Africa.”
The wave of decolonization that swept across the continent in the late 1950s and early 1960s was a direct result of the Atlantic Charter (1941), the establishment of the United Nations (1945), and the UN Trusteeship System, which explicitly placed colonial territories under international supervision toward self-government and independence.
Therefore, La République du Cameroun’s assertion of any colonial tie or inherited sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons is historically false and legally void. The truth is that German Kamerun’s colonial headquarters was in Buea, not in Yaoundé—Yaoundé was a French administrative creation that came later under mandate rule. This simple geographical and historical fact invalidates the entire myth propagated by French Cameroon leaders, who continue to claim continuity with a colonial entity that never belonged to them.
It exposes, instead, the profound historical illiteracy of a political class that remains trapped in French narratives rather than grounded in African realism.
Ambazonia’s territorial, cultural, and historical foundation lies in the former British Southern Cameroons, whose institutions, laws, and language developed under a separate trusteeship system. Thus, the claim that Ambazonia “broke away” from Cameroon is a fabrication of French colonial propaganda, not a reflection of historical fact.
Why Federalism Is Now Obsolete
Federalism, once a political ideal, has lost both credibility and relevance. It failed in 1972 and cannot be resurrected by decree. The Social Democratic Front (SDF), since 1990, campaigned on a federalist platform but could not protect the Anglophone people from marginalization, cultural erasure, and military repression. Paul Biya’s war of 2017 transformed the conflict into an international armed confrontation between two entities, not an internal political misunderstanding.
Federalism, therefore, is no longer a viable bargaining chip. For Ambazonians who have buried their children, lost their homes, and endured mass killings, “federalism” is a colonial echo—an insult to memory.
Representation: Who Speaks for Ambazonia
Any credible negotiation must respect the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Humanitarian Law, which recognize only belligerents—not NGOs or civil society—as parties to armed conflict.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, led by its elected and exiled leadership, represents the Ambazonian people. The Ambazonia State Army (ASA) is the legitimate armed wing of this struggle. Civil society, clergy, or academics may facilitate dialogue, but they cannot negotiate sovereignty. Ambazonia’s leadership, exiled, remains the only legitimate counterpart to Yaoundé in any peace framework.
The Practical and Human Realities
Even if Issa Tchiroma Bakary were to become president, the following realities make federal dialogue impossible.
The Ambazonia State Army (ASA) controls significant rural and border regions. No presidential decree can compel them to surrender without international guarantees and recognition of status.
Decades of deceit—from Ahidjo’s false federation to Biya’s fake decentralization—have destroyed public confidence. Ambazonians will not accept reforms designed by the same system that declared war on them.
After eight years of mass graves, disappearances, and burning villages, anglophone identity has crystallized into Ambazonian nationhood. The psychological divide is irreversible.
The Only Negotiable Framework: End of Occupation
The only legitimate subject for negotiation between the two sides is the end of occupation and the terms of separation. That includes a permanent ceasefire and demilitarization of Ambazonian territory, neutral international mediation (such as by the United States, Canada, or Switzerland), reparations and reconstruction, justice for victims of war crimes, and formal recognition of Ambazonia’s sovereignty as the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons.
Conclusion: Beyond Symbolism to Historical Truth
The deception that ensnared Foncha, Muna, and Ngom Jua cannot be repeated.
They negotiated in good faith—with men who had no mandate from their people, but full backing from France’s neocolonial machinery.
Ambazonia will not again negotiate its slavery under the guise of reform.
Therefore, the Ambazonian Question cannot—and must not—appear on any “federalist” negotiating table. It is a matter of international law, historical rectification, and human survival. To reduce it to internal reform under a new Yaoundé presidency is to perpetuate the very fraud that began in 1961.
Dr. Martin Mungwa
Commissioned Secretary for Communications & Diplomacy Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia (in exile)
