-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 1st 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
No comments:
Post a Comment