WHEN YAOUNDÉ’S ALLIES SUDDENLY ENDORSE AYUK TABE: SOLIDARITY OR A POLITICAL CONTRADICTION?

Ambazonia is not one man’s prison story. It is a national question. Before anyone declares who Yaoundé must negotiate with, Ambazonians deserve an answer to the more fundamental question: Who has the authority to determine the terms on which their future will be negotiated?

By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief, Independentist News

As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases

Get books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=martin+mungwa&crid=3ASZUKJG4IRKV&sprefix=Martin+mungwa%2Caps%2C439&linkCode=ll2&tag=njokings-20&linkId=59c0148d4af429e21f1453850031ada1&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

BUEA – October 9, 2026 – Notice the sudden chorus. Agbor Gilbert, Makongo, and other personalities whom Ambazonian independence supporters have long regarded as opponents of their cause are now publicly endorsing Sisiku Ayuk Tabe as a negotiating partner for Yaoundé. That shift deserves scrutiny.

Where were these voices when Ambazonians sought international recognition of their national aspirations? Why are they not also calling for recognition of the institutions of the Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia? Why are they not encouraging the free leadership to consolidate, organise, and prepare for inclusive negotiations? Why does their message appear to begin and end with the demand that Yaoundé negotiate with Ayuk Tabe?

An endorsement of an individual is not necessarily an endorsement of the cause he represents. Ambazonians have every reason to ask: Why Ayuk Tabe? Why now? What political framework accompanies these calls, and what place does it provide for the wider national leadership?

These questions should not be dismissed as hostility towards Ayuk Tabe. They concern political representation, national aspirations, and the integrity of any future negotiation process. If these personalities support a negotiated resolution, they should explain whether they also support an inclusive process involving the relevant Ambazonian leadership and institutions. Supporting Ayuk Tabe’s participation does not, by itself, justify sidelining the free leadership. Nor does an outside endorsement confer the authority to decide who alone should speak for Ambazonia.

The distinction matters. An inclusive negotiation addressing the fundamental causes of the conflict is one proposition. A meeting between Yaoundé and a preferred interlocutor is another. The latter could contribute to the former, but it cannot automatically substitute for it.

What, then, is being proposed? Would the process recognise the broader Ambazonian political leadership? Would it address the aspirations of the people? Would the relevant parties have a meaningful voice in shaping the agenda and evaluating any proposed settlement? Until these questions are answered, the announcement of a preferred negotiating partner offers no assurance of a credible political solution.

The leadership operating outside prison must also be part of this discussion. President Dr Samuel Ikome Sako leads the free-government structure identified with the Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia. His supporters regard that government and the Ambazonian State Army (ASA) as central institutions of the continuing struggle against La République du Cameroun.

A comprehensive negotiation process must account for these institutions, their constituencies, and the realities of the conflict on the ground. It cannot assume that an agreement with one imprisoned leader would automatically secure the participation or acceptance of those operating outside prison.

This is precisely why the conversation cannot be reduced to a single personality. Ayuk Tabe’s imprisonment gives his situation undeniable political and human significance. It does not settle the separate question of how an entire people should be represented in negotiations over their future.

President Sako’s leadership cannot simply be erased because certain personalities prefer to promote Ayuk Tabe. Equally, Ayuk Tabe’s place in the struggle should not be dismissed because others support the free government. A serious process must confront the question of representation openly, with clear arrangements for participation, mandates, and accountability.

Ambazonia should not be forced into a choice between an imprisoned leader and the leadership operating outside prison. Different representatives can bring distinct constituencies, experiences, and responsibilities to the table. The task is to establish a process capable of accommodating those realities while remaining accountable to the people whose future is at stake.

Any credible negotiations should therefore be inclusive, supported by credible third-party mediation, and directed towards resolving the fundamental political conflict between Ambazonia and La République du Cameroun. The agenda must extend beyond identifying someone with whom Yaoundé is willing to speak.

It must clarify what is being negotiated, who has a mandate to participate, how affected communities will be represented, and how any proposed settlement will gain their consent. Without that framework, a meeting may produce headlines while leaving the national question unresolved.

The sudden endorsements deserve examination on those terms. What exactly are these personalities supporting: Ayuk Tabe’s participation, the Ambazonian national cause, or a particular arrangement favoured by Yaoundé? Do they recognise the right of Ambazonians to determine their political future? Would they support an inclusive process even if it brought other leaders and institutions to the table?

Past opposition does not make a change of position impossible. People can reconsider their views, and a sincere shift towards peace should be welcomed. But sincerity becomes politically meaningful through clear commitments. Those now advocating negotiations should explain what they believe the process must recognise and resolve.

Ayuk Tabe and those around him also have an opportunity to seek that clarity. They can insist that endorsements of his participation be accompanied by support for an inclusive negotiating framework. They can make clear that his presence at the table should advance the national cause and accommodate the broader leadership, rather than become a reason to exclude it.

Ultimately, who speaks for Ambazonia cannot be settled by outside endorsements alone. Representation requires a credible mandate, an inclusive process, and accountability to the people. The substance of a proposed settlement matters more than the prominence of any individual invited to discuss it.

Ambazonia is not one man’s prison story. It is a national question. Before anyone declares who Yaoundé must negotiate with, Ambazonians deserve an answer to the more fundamental question: Who has the authority to determine the terms on which their future will be negotiated?

As Amazon associate this site earns from qualifying purchases

Get books on Ambazonia’s productive Sovereignty and statecraft By Martin Mungwa on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=martin+mungwa&crid=3ASZUKJG4IRKV&sprefix=Martin+mungwa%2Caps%2C439&linkCode=ll2&tag=njokings-20&linkId=59c0148d4af429e21f1453850031ada1&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief, Independentist News