Federalism is a better way to start the Reconciliation process in Cameroon

-Barrister Ben Muna, lead counsel for the outlawed Anglophone Consortium Leaders

The lead counsel for detained leaders of the banned Anglophone Civil Society Consortium, Barrister Ben Muna, in this exclusive interview argues energetically that the much-talked-of an imminent Anglophone independence is a far-fetched dream that going by him would never see the light of day, even in 100 years.

Ben Muna however says Anglophones can only have independence if they choose to go to war with La Republique du Cameroun but quickly adds that he doesn’t see that happening because Anglophones have no army, weapons and the much-needed billions to wage an independence war.

The only option left for Anglophones, he suggests, is for them to hold the Biya regime firmly by its testes until it accepts a return to federalism.

Barrister Ben Muna equally talks about the possible conditional release of Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem Neba and the impact it could have on the Anglophone struggle. He begins by expressing his mixed feelings on the submission of the military prosecutor regarding the fate of his clients Barrister Agbor Balla Felix, Dr. Fontem Neba, Bibixy Mancho and the 25 other Anglophone detainees.

Well, I received the submission with mixed feelings. The military prosecutor as you must have learnt on Wednesday May 24, 2017, in reply to our submissions for bail on behalf of Dr. Fontem, Agbor Balla, Mancho Bibixy and all the other 25 accused persons, said he was not opposed to bail for Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem who are well known.

For the time being, the prosecutor has not given his ruling concerning the application for bail we made on behalf of Bibixy Mancho and the 25 other Anglophone detainees. I am hopeful that come June 7, 2017, he would say something positive regarding the application for bail we made.

Whatever be the case, I urge the court not to follow the logic of the military prosecutor who seems to be saying that bail might be granted only to Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem. All the 28 accused persons should be treated equally especially as they are being tried jointly.

The prosecutor’s submission might have made some sense if Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem were being tried separately. But now that all of them are on one charge, you cannot give bail to one part of the people and refuse it to the other part. I am however hoping that…

What meaning do you read in the prosecutor’s interpretation of the law?

Let me just finish and say that they should not do that! They should give bail to all of them. I think that there is scheming on the part of some members of government, because on that day, there was actually an open quarrel between the civilian members of the prosecution and the military bench.

They did not seem to agree on what submission to make on that day because there was an open disagreement among them. This reflects the trend of thought among the hardliners that government has a big say concerning the fate of my clients who are awaiting trial at the military tribunal.

Let me quickly add that I see in the prosecutor’s submission that bail might be granted only to Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem, a Machiavellic intention. 

Government’s thinking is apparently that if they grant bail only to these two leaders, the population will now be angry that these two leaders have been bought over by the Yaounde authorities.

The second thing is that those from the CPDM government who want to see violence in West Cameroon would now use their release to provoke Anglophones who might say: “Since our leaders have been bought over, this thing can only be resolved by separation”. This plan has Machiavellic intentions and I hope the judge will not allow this to happen.

We seem to be talking only about Agbor Balla, Dr. Fontem, Bibixy Mancho and the 25 others who are currently standing trial at the military tribunal! What about the many other Anglophone detainees who have not yet been charged?

I believe that as usual, the prosecution, pushed by the government got people arrested when they did not have any evidence. You probably want to know that the 19 youths who were arrested in Wum in February 2016 and taken to Kondengui have not yet been charged!

I am talking about those arrested in connection to the current Anglophone crisis?

I am aware. My understanding is that government is punishing them by detaining them without trial. This is unlawful punishment. Those who were arrested in this second wave of demonstrations for the rights of West Cameroon may also be detained indefinitely, especially if bail is eventually granted only to Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem.

Government knows that Agbor Balla is a lawyer and Dr. Fontem a lecturer at the University of Buea. In government’s thinking, if they, Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem are released, the international community would forget about what is happening in Cameroon.

What is your take on those asking Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem not to accept conditional bail or not to accept to be bailed while the other Anglophone detainees are kept in jail?

I read on WhatsApp that some people, especially in the Diaspora, are saying that Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem should not accept conditional bail or accept to be bailed only on condition that all other Anglophone detainees are freed along side with them.

I am saddened by this reasoning because people who are free, people who have fled the country and Anglophone escapees, who are enjoying freedom in another person’s country, can sit from there to dictate how we should manage our own freedom here.

It is also curious that those championing such primitive campaigns are people who are using the fact that Dr. Fontem, Agbor Balla and about 84 others are in jail to enrich themselves.

We have documentary evidence how some Anglophones in the Diaspora are making huge sums of money indirectly and through fundraising under the guise of looking for support for Anglophone detainees back home.

Therefore for anybody to suggest that Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem should not accept conditional bail or not accept to be bailed until all Anglophone detainees are freed is tantamount to using them as fodder to feed their own ambitions.

I challenge those who share in this school of thought to leave the United States or Nigeria and come to Cameroon and offer themselves for arrest like the others did. I am opposed to this type of thinking where people who are several miles away from the reality on the ground are giving lectures to those who have been deprived of liberty. It is very unfortunate that people would want their compatriots to stay in jail so that they would continue to make money out of their sufferings.

I think the argument is that if Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem refuse any conditional release or accept bail only on condition that all Anglophone detainees are freed alongside them, government would be forced to free all of them?

Well, it sounds true but knowing what this government is capable of doing, one cannot be too sure.  Rather, I think if Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem are freed, they would be in a better position to amplify the struggle from without than from within (in jail).

Even if one of the conditions of the release is that when they get out, they should shut up, I bet you that it would be less so even when they are granted a conditional release.

But what do your clients, Dr. Fontem and Agbor Balla think about getting conditional bail or leaving jail while their other compatriots stay back behind bars?

I have spoken to both Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem and their thinking is rather that they would be happy to continue to stay in jail if only such a move can force government to free all the other Anglophone detainees. If the tables are turned and the government thinks the other way round, what will you in their position do? Personally, I think there are more advantages in their accepting even a conditional bail especially as they have rich international profiles which while out can be used to magnify what is happening to Anglophone detainees in Kondengui and Anglophones in Cameroon.

The fear, I think, is also that Bibixy Mancho and the 26 others who are being tried alongside Agbor Balla and Dr. Fontem may not have the same legal representation as soon as the Consortium leaders are bailed?

My law firm has been constituted for all of them. I mean, the 26/27 who are there and the 80 others who are yet to appear in court. I go to prison at least twice a week to visit them. There are other lawyers, Francophones and Anglophones, who are also coming in to help.

I agree with you that if Agbor Balla is granted bail on June 7, some of the lawyers, thinking that their colleague is already out of danger, might not have the same enthusiasm. I am praying they should know that they are not only fighting for their colleague but for the liberty of innocent Cameroonians.

Do you sincerely think life will return to normalcy in the two Anglophone regions if all Anglophone detainees are freed, come June 7?

Life can never be normal. Life can never really be normal. But people could return to their activities. Normal in the sense that everybody returns to their business, people go to school, etc. but there will be a scar in the minds of the people of the North West and South West regions. Some of us cannot easily forget that anybody can treat a part of this country the way they have been treating us. But you never know, if a new government takes over eventually, things would return to normal. Let children return to school in September, let lawyers return to court on condition that government also releases all Anglophones who have been arrested in connection to the current crisis.

The SDF has created a commission to investigate all the killings and human rights abuses in the South West and North West regions. The party’s chairman, Fru Ndi, says he would transmit the reports to international bodies. In your opinion, is the move too late or too little?

Well, we have already transmitted many reports to international bodies through international channels, and we did this as civil society and independent people and not necessarily as an opposition party which has an interest in bringing down a government.

We have an interest in democracy and in seeing this country being run properly. If they would do it well, nobody would be opposing him. However, I do not think that this particular inquiry would have the weight as it would have had if the SDF members of parliament themselves raised the matter as Hon. Wirba Joseph did and walked out of parliament in anger.

Mounting an inquiry as an opposition party? It is assumed that it will be partial. So I doubt that any international body will take them seriously. As a political party, their action should be felt in parliament, not belatedly creating a commission of inquiry.

Do you have the feeling that the international community is giving a blind eye and deaf ear to the Anglophone crisis?

Oh, they are rising to it. They are now seeing the danger that it poses. Last weekend, another top official of the United Nations came and we had a chat; he asked me some questions because he is writing a report he will submit to his boss. In the near future, a bigger mission from the UN, not just the human rights group, would be visiting Cameroon in connection to the current crisis rocking the North West and South West regions.

The much talk about Anglophone independence! Do you see this happening even in the next 100 years?

I read a very interesting article on WhatsApp on Anglophone independence where the author was asking to know the modalities of gaining the much-talked-about Anglophone independence. His worries were: “How will we go about it? How would it be done? Who will do the declaration of Anglophone independence...?

These are key questions begging for urgent and convincing answers. I am saddened to read the deformation of UN Resolution 1608. At no time did any UN Resolution state that Southern Cameroons should be granted independence! All they said was that Southern Cameroons should either gain independence by joining Nigeria or by joining La Republique du Cameroun.

Secondly, from a practical point of view, nobody, not even any organisation in the world, can come back again and say: “OK, Cameroon, I divide you back into two.”

Number three, I do not know any such court in the world that can give Anglophones such an opportunity to choose between gaining total independence and staying with La Republique du Cameroun.

Already, the International Court of Justice had shown what it thinks when Ahidjo sued the UN and praying the ICJ to retract the delivery of Northern Cameroon to Nigeria. The ICJ gave its decision that 1) The United Nations can no longer consider that decision because when once it cancelled the trusteeship agreement, the United Nations has no more hands to interfere because the trusteeship is finished and it ended on 1^st October 1961.

The United Nations can no longer consider any such issue as the independence of either the Northern or Southern Cameroons. There is no court in the world that has the jurisdiction to force the UN to open up a matter that it had already closed.

I do not therefore see where we can open up a jurisdiction to get a peaceful restoration of the statehood of Southern Cameroons. The only way that we can gain statehood is by war.

Now, let us look at other countries. Sudan fought for more than 20 years; during which thousands of lives were lost. The United Nations came in just because the crisis was threatening world peace.

Somalia had Somali-land which re-established its parliament and its state and has been existing for more than 30 years, but the rest of Somalia is still at war. But this day, no one country has recognized Somali-land as a separate state. They have a government; they are doing better than the rest of Somalia but nobody recognises them as a nation.

Let us take Sri-Lanka. They had a bloody civil war in which the Tamil population was massacred, killed; at that time, the United Nations did not say anything. The government killed all it wanted to kill and occupied the whole land, and then the UN came in and said, there has been genocide here. Honestly, I do not know any country that the United Nations intervened at the first stage of a bloody crisis to separate them into two states.

Do you think that Anglophones have the weapons to force their independence through war?

Well, for the time being, I am seeing a lot of flags, but I am not seeing the type of weapons or whatever that will be used to fight for independence or the money which they have. It costs a lot of money to go into war against a government. It is not the few hundred or few thousand dollars that you can raise from the US that will finance the weaponry that you need to fight a war of independence.

So what do you think is the way forward out of the crisis in the North West and South West regions?

I think that this unfortunate marriage has taken place. For the time being, I think that since we are living in one house, let us say “Since we are not agreeing, you have your own room, I have my own room. We can come and eat at table together, cook together and so on, but let us have separate rooms.” That is the practical solution for now.

So what are you proposing as the way forward?

We go back to federation. The marriage has not worked, it is clear that it is not working at all. There is no need trying to force it; it is not working. Let us look at our desires to start building fences and see where we went wrong. It is not like in a marriage. Those who are advocating a return to federalism have this in mind and I think that is a better way to start the reconciliation process.

Adapted from The Guardian Post

cameroonpeople.blogspot.com/ Email:francoeko@gmail.com/edevnewspaper@gmail.com/Tel: +237678401408/+237696896001/+237669542467