“SOUTHERN CAMEROONS” SOUTHERN CAMEROONS REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL (SCRC) [Former United Nations Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration (1916-1961)] “THE NEW GLORY” NOTICE TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY DATE: 25/09/2013 SOUTHERN CAMEROONS NOTE: 1. Boundary with Cameroun (To the right of Mt. Cameroon, better still Mt. Mongo-Ma-Loba) is an international boundary by treaties since 1916, 1919, 1922, 1931, 1934, 1946 and 1961. 2. Southern Cameroons shares boundary with Cameroun to the East, Nigeria to the West, and the Atlantic Ocean to the South; 3. Mt. Cameroon is by its traditional name known as Mt. Mongo-Ma-Loba or “Chariot of Gods.” 4. Bakassi Peninsula is part of Marshy land next to south-western tip of boundary with Nigeria; 5. Crude Oil is not shown as part of Mineral resources even though by 1972 Cameroun President AhmadouAhidjo had already began mining oil from Southern Cameroons, clandestinely! 6. Flag on cover page is the Original flag of the Southern Cameroons as of 1954-1960 Let it be known that on this Day of Our Lord 21 September 2013, that: By the Order of the Southern Cameroons Revolutionary Council (SCRC) and in line with measures taken to execute Judgement Enforcement Ordinances issued in 2005 and 2006 by Ambazonia’s Head of State FonFongumGorji-Dinka II, this notice may be cited as Southern Cameroons Revolutionary Council (SCRC) Notice 002/13 (SCRCN002/13).The SCRC hereby draws the attention as well as puts on notice the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and the President of the UN General Assembly as follows: 1. That Republic of Cameroun (01/01/1960) has, in violation of international law subjected Southern Cameroons under her jurisdiction with server consequences on material and human life that warrants rebellion. 2. That having exhausted domestic and international remedies and forced to justify both in yet more domestic cases, the SCRC recognizes beyond reasonable doubt that even with proven exhaustion of remedies, Cameroun is unwilling to vacate this territory which she illegally subjected under her jurisdiction; 3. That the current posturing by political parties paid to continuously subject Southern Cameroons to the dictates of Cameroon politics is cause for concern that fuels youthful dissent and mass rebellion; 4. That in the event of any such occurrences these political parties and the Cameroon government should be seen as contumeliously aiding and abetting crimes against humanity with their visible provocations and assaults on the conscience and destiny of Southern Cameroons nationals and territory; 5. That having been notified since 1985 until date with written documents and evidence of cases—Domestic and international, won by Southern Cameroons nationals in groups and singularly, the UN has responsibility under international law to see the peaceful separation of Southern Cameroons from Cameroun, as soon as possible before this territory erupts into an inferno. 6. That for diligence, the legal victories against Cameroun are as follows: (a) Cameroun Military Tribunal Judgment of 1986 when the leader of the Ambazonia Restoration Council (ARC) FonFongumGorji-Dinka was tried and acquitted on charges of High Treason (for releasing the Three Landmark Documents: New Social Order (March 1985), Open Letter to Cameroun L’etat-Major: Defuse the Time Bomb (May 1985); and The Revolt of Ambazonia (July, 1985). These documents demanded the withdrawal of Cameroun administration from Ambazonia in accordance with Cameroun Restoration law of April 24, 1984. 7. Proclamation Formalizing the independence of Republic of Ambazonia submitted to the UNO and OAU in 1990 and 1991 respectively, has been backed by the following legal victories: i. Cameroun High Court Judgment HCB/28/92, Holden at the Bamenda Cameroun High Court, where Cameroun authorities after admitting a case against their illegal occupation of Ambazonia failed to contest the estoppel within the case and so the Court, especially internationally have recognized the Judgment in rem against Cameroun; ii. Ambazonia Head of State Fon “FongumGorji-Dinka Versus British Foreign Secretary” in 1997 in the Crown Court in London in which the British government was forced by surmounting evidence to plead ‘no contest’ thereby admitting that the process of handing over Southern Cameroons was marred and inconsistent with the terms of Trusteeship Agreement and Commonwealth of Nations Laws. iii. The Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organization (SCAPO) took upon Nigeria at the Abuja High Court in 2002 (FHC/ABJ/CS/30/2002) over sovereign rights and boundaries inherent from colonialism—that Southern Cameroons is not part of La Republique du Cameroun. The Organization won the case. iv. In addition “FongumGorji-Dinka –v- Cameroon” at the United Nations Human Rights Committeein a summative case review all the above-cited cases (UN Tribunal inFongumGorji-Dinka -v- Cameroon, UNICCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002). Judgment in favour of Ambazonia’s leader was delivered in New York, NY, on 17 March 2005. v. At the AHRC, Restorationist groups of the Southern Cameroons—specifically the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organization (SCAPO) took Cameroun of French colonial extraction to task, at the African Human Rights Commission (AHRC) at Banjul, The Gambia, (Communication 266/2003) and won, though Cameroun propaganda on national TV claimed a draw game. vi. The ICJ ruling inter alia reads as follows, a. Bakassi is said to have formed part of the area of British Cameroon termed Southern Cameroons (para 210 line 8-9); b. The map attached to the report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner shows that the Bakassi formed part of the VictoriaSouth West plebiscite district in the southwest corner of Cameroon. This would show that the Peninsular was recognised by the United Nations as being part of the Southern Cameroon (line 24-27); c. For the entire period of 1922 till 1961 when trusteeship was terminated Bakassi was comprised within British Cameroon (para. 212 line 36-39); d. Moreover, as the Court has shown in para. 213 in 1961/62 Nigeria clearly and publicly recognized Cameroon title to Bakassi(para. 223 line 15-16);(Charming Betsey technic?) e. The Court accordingly concludes that the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by articles XVIII to XX of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 and that sovereignty over the Bakassi peninsular lies with Cameroon (para. 225 line 1-3); (Charming Betsey Technique?) f. Nigeria claims to have acted in self-defence. It further contends that if the Court should find that Cameroon has sovereignty over these areas, the Nigerian presence there was the result of a “reasonable mistake” or “honest belief”. Accordingly Nigeria cannot be held internationally responsible for which, at the time it took place, Nigeria had every reason to believe was lawful (para. 311 line 4-9); (Whose mistake? UN? Brits?) g. Nigeria does not deny that Nigerian armed forces and a Nigerian administration are currently in places in these areas which the Court has determined are Cameroon territories/ territory, adding in respect of the establishment of the municipality of Bakassi that, if the Court were to recognize Cameroon’s sovereignty over such areas, there is nothing irreversible in the relevant arrangements made by Nigeria. The same reasoning clearly applies to other spheres of civil administration as well as military and police forces” (para. 312 line 3-8) (Well then, UN should come out openly, admit the reasonable mistake and reverse the doomed and damned plebiscite!) 8. Mbuh, Justice Muluh –V- Cameroun (Suit No. HCB/PI304CMR/09 of Preliminary Investigation; and Suit No. HCB/37CMR/09 in Court),during which Justice Mbuh was incarceration and paraded before Cameroun-controlled High Court of Mezam, 19 times in 22 months, after which he was discharged and acquitted of two counts of secession charges trumped upon him by the Cameroun government, and numerous such cases (e.g. Ntumngia Timothy Neba –V- The People of Cameroon; Sembe Alfred Shey –V- The People of Cameroon; Ade Francis –V- The People of Cameroon, etc., etc.,), some still pending as we read this notice. 9. That based on the above, and with growing anger and tension in this subjected and subjugated territory, there is bound to be civil unrest because Cameroun authorities continue to impose their rule over the Southern Cameroons (alias Ambazonia). How much cause must Southern Cameroonians (Ambazonians) show short of carrying arms, to have Cameroun accept to withdraw from their illegal position in Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) and over Bakassi Peninsula? With clear evidence of acknowledgements from Constitutional experts and historians of predominantly La Republique du Cameroun origin vehemently insisting that there was no legal re-unification between the Two Cameroons, compounded by the legal rulings from domestic and international courts and tribunals, nothing should stop the UN from intervening now (not tomorrow) and save the masses of Cameroun and Southern Cameroons (aka Ambazonia) from a very greedy and seemingly brain-dead regime whose provocations, compounded by Occultism (voodoo-politics) would likely trigger another Rwanda-like Genocide upon our masses and foreign nationals. Clearly, Cameroun has no locus standi to exercise jurisdiction over this territory! Issued 25 September 2013 by, Southern Cameroons Revolutionary Council (SCRC) Signed: Justice MuluhMbuh, Spokesperson ADDENDUM: HISTORIANS AND CONSTITUTIONALISTS PANEL SAY REUNIFICATION WAS ILLEGAL Yaoundé, April 5, 2013. Historians and constitutionalists gathering in Yaoundé, have said that no legal documents were established at the time of reunification between the two Cameroons to bind them in a union. They made the declaration during a conference- debate on the theme “The case of Cameroon at the UNO” organized by the commission in charge of studies, conferences and debates for the celebration of fifty years of independence of Cameroon. The conference that rallied several cabinet ministers and other senior state officials was officially opened by the director of civil cabinet at the presidency of the republic, Martin BelingaEboutou. In a chronological presentation of what appeared to be the decolonization process of British Southern Cameroons from 1945 to 1961, imminent professor of history, Julius Victor Ngoh admonished; “special note should be taken that the terms of reunification reached during the Foumban conference attended by both parties from British Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun were merely proposals for constitutional amendment and not a binding document”. Ngoh’s ten minutes argument maintained that the elements of union between Southern Cameroons and East Cameroon were merely temporal proposals for future application and could not be considered as binding to the parties. Ngoh told the 800- man audience that “It should be noted that Majority of the voters did not understand the meaning of reunification. Most of them were made to understand that reunification meant being with their Francophone brothers for a while and to later pull out and gain their independence.” The issue of the constitutional status of reunification was one of the topics that caught the attention of most attendants. Seasoned professor of public law and constitutional specialist, OndouaMagloire, held audience spellbound with brilliant legal concerns involved before and after the reunification of the two Cameroons. Ondoua who however, had to go through thick and thin to admit that there was and there is actually no legal document binding the two Cameroons together claimed that the present state of Cameroon was born in 1961 and not reunification. He stated that the union between two states is an international issue and for such union to be recognized, an international treaty must be signed to keep the two parties clutched. “There was neither treaty nor accord that can hold anyone bound today”. He stated succinctly. He however, in the second part of his thesis disclosed that international treaties can only be signed between two sovereign states. According to him, Southern Cameroons was not yet a sovereign state and so was not qualified for an international treaty that could enable her sign a treaty with La Republique du Cameroun which was already a sovereign state. “It was merely an issue of an elder brother opening his hands to admit a younger brother.” Ondoua concluded that there was no reunification, rather there was the birth of a state, “we should not celebrate 50 years of reunification; rather we should celebrate 50 years of the birth of a state.” He said. Meantime a statement made in the course of Ondoua’s exposition triggered some mixed feelings amongst some Anglophone attendants. They felt a dirty slap in their face. Hear him “the Foumban conference that determined the nature of reunification saw the presence of all the Anglophones who mattered at the time and who all voted for the terms that were reached. It would be unreasonable today for anyone to claim that they are not well treated in the union since everyone adhered to the terms.” To add salt to the wound, he added that “all legal texts in Cameroon today including the constitution are clear that the most protected party is the Anglophones.” It should be noted that OndouaMagloire is one of the most seasoned constitutionalists in Cameroon whose presence in the hall was considered by many as a careful selection to dampen hopes by a majority of Anglophones who feel cheated in what they have often described as an unfruitful union and think that secession was still a possibility. Anglophone journalists in the hall argued later that by selecting the best francophone constitutionalist to talk on reunification, a more brilliant Anglophone with good legal knowledge would have been selected to withstand him. The choice of Victor Ngoh to recount the events leading to reunification of the two countries was also criticized by Anglophones who described Ngoh as a native of Ewondo, settled in the South West region. They questioned why the traditional historical pundits like Fansoh who is noted for his unrelenting lectures on reunification was not invited. Other panelists at the conference included Nforbin Eric, constitutional law researcher; Louis Paul Ngongo, Professor of political science; Michael Ndobegang, Professor of history; Abel Eyinga, eye witness at the UN during reunification debates and Dr. of military history, VirginiWanyaka and Emmanuel Pondi, Specialist in IR. May God give us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can and wisdom to know the difference.....
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 22:27:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015