:::I fight for the independence of Southern Cameroons but, I am not a secessionist !:::

The title of this piece will easily pass for a typical example of a reflexive contradictory statement. 

But it is not! 

And I´ll tell you why.

The word secessionist is one that is bandied around by the colonialist regime of “La Republique du Cameroun”, to make Southern Cameroon nationalists look like terrorists. As a result, some erstwhile sympathisers of the Southern Cameroons cause are beginning to re-think their position, informed by the propagated discourse that secession cannot be effected without some aspects of war and terrorism.

It would be indeed foolhardy not to recognize the truth that is ingrained in that school of thought, especially if we look at the genesis, history and evolution of contemporary examples of secessions, such as in the case of South Sudan.

However, are these concerns about secession valid in the context of the struggle of the Southern Cameroons against La Republique du Cameroun? That is the question which I seek to answer and by so doing, debunk the falsehood that Southern Cameroons nationalists are secessionists and implicitly, terrorists, as they are often referred to, albeit in fine print.

In international law, a territory that seeks to break away from a country is said to be secessionist only if at the time of the independence of that country:

1.       The want-away entity was geographically an integral part of, and within the internationally recognized national and territorial boundaries of that country.

2.       The want-away entity and the mother country shared the same political reality and system.

3.       The want-away territory and the mother country shared the same administrative and institutional structures.

These three criteria are considered as the guarantors to the common destiny of the peoples in a country at the time of it's independence.

Even the most lousy considerations would reveal that, the “njumbaism” between the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun do not fulfil any of the above mentioned sine qua non, since at the time when La Republique du Cameroun gained its independence on 01. January 1960:

1.       The Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun had distinct and internationally recognized (by the League of Nations and followed by the UNO) national geographic borders.

2.       The Southern Cameroons enjoyed a well advanced parliamentary democracy with Nigeria at the Enugu parliament, while the people of La Republique du Cameroon were in a political limbo as a Paris inspired concoction of Jacobinism was being experimented down their collective throats.

3.       The Southern Cameroons were administered proxy by The Great Britain through Nigeria, from which it inherited its much cherished Anglo-Saxon culture, while La Republique du Cameroun was being administered by the French.

Therefore, according to international law, the lack of ingredients to guarantee a common destiny between the peoples of the Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun becomes clear. Consequently, the claim that Southern Cameroonians fighting for their independence are secessionists becomes null and void!

So, if it is not secession,

 What is it then?

Just as divorce is for married couples and separation for “come-we-stayers”, so too, is secession for countries that were one (et indivisible, á la Bi Mvondo!) at independence and separation for independent countries that decided to live together for convenience (brotherly, if you like) sake.

That means, the people of the Southern Cameroons are seeking to separate and not to secede from La Republique du Cameroun and, Southern Cameroons nationalists are separatists, not secessionists!! In the mainstream and manipulative discourse, this difference may be subtle, yet in international law it becomes tangible.

As a consequence of this tangibility, international law clearly allows for the separation of hither-to independent nations as enshrined in the rights to self determination, usually by the means of a referendum on the want-away entity. On the other hand, no clear prescription exists for the case of secession, which explains why most secessionist movements (attempts) are marred with wars and some aspects of terrorism. 

The following examples may help to understand the difference between secession and separation:

-          In order to achieve their lifelong dream of a Biafra Republic, the Biafrans will have to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria (decades of war, terrorism, etc).  Meanwhile, if the people of the island of Zanzibar want to become an independent nation, they need to only separate from Tanganyika (Tanzania) by following internationally recognized due procedures – referendum.

-          The state of Alaska can separate from the U.S.A by referendum, while for the state of New York to become an independent nation; they will have to go through a secessionist struggle.

So, my fellow Southern Cameroons nationalists, fear not, and remain steadfast. We can and shall indeed earn our independence from the thugs and colonialists of La Republique du Cameroun without a war because we are a peace loving people and we are separatists not secessionists. Our case is clear and we shall follow the due process as prescribed by international law to the letter and we shall be the last ones smiling.

“njumba no be married!”

Aluta continua!

::: Emile Tabu Ojong, a.k.a Sir Tabu, a.k.a Thelastoneleft :::