Southern Cameroons People's organization
The Banjul Communiqué
Text of the 37th Session of the African Commission on Human & Peoples Rights
The Banjul Communiqué
37th Session of the African Commission on
Human & Peoples Rights
Re: Communication No 266/2003
Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gumne and Others; Acting on their
Behalf and on Behalf of SCAPO and the Southern Cameroons versus
La République du Cameroun.
Introduction
This is a case that was filed before the Africa
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on January 9, 2003 by
representatives of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and
Southern Cameroons Peoples Organisation (SCAPO), acting on their
personal behalf and on the behalf of the Southern Cameroons. The
plaintiffs who filed the case were the following:
1. Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gumne
2. Mr. Augustine Feh Ndangam
3. Dr. Martin Ngeka Luma (Deceased)
4. Chief Ayamba Ette Otun
5. Mr. Nfor Ngala Nfor
6. Mr. Humphrey Mbinglo
7. Mr. Albert Womah Mukong (Deceased)
8. Isaac M. Sona
9. Dr. Emil Mondoa
10. Dr. Tayoba Ngenge
11. Dr. Stephen Shemlon
12. Dr. Martin Ayim
13. Dr. J Asongu
14. Mrs. Regina Mankefor (Deceased)
15. Ms Melissa Nambangi
16. Mr. Andrew Edimo
17. Mr. Tum Tafon
18. Mr. Dennis Atemkeng
Mr Henry DK Mundam
The complainants were represented by Prof. Carlson
Anyangwe, as lead Counsel and the law firm of Akinlawon & Ajomo
of Lagos, Nigeria. The complaint recites that La République du
Cameroun is guilty of violating the rights of hundreds of citizens of
the Southern Cameroons and the collective rights of the People of
the Southern Cameroons.
Violation of the Rights of Citizens of the Southern Cameroonians
In their Submissions on Admissibility and on the
Merits Complainants adduced compelling and conclusive evidence of a
continuing and consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested
violations by the Respondent State of individual human rights in the
Southern Cameroons. This was supported by an exhaustive catalogue of
repression and oppression, targeting the people of the Southern
Cameroons, involving torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, maiming,
extra judicial executions and killings of the citizens of the
Southern dating from 1961.
Complainants submitted that the delinquent conduct of
Respondent State violates Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Particular attention was drawn to Article 4 which protects the right
to life and to the physical integrity of the person; to Article 5
outlaws torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and
punishment; to Article 6 which prohibits arbitrary arrests and
detention; Article 7 which guarantees the right to fair trial; and
Articles 9-12 which guarantee the right to freedom of expression,
association, assembly and movement.
Violation of the Collective Rights of the Peoples of the Southern Cameroons
Complainants further submitted that forty-four years
ago in 1961, Respondent State occupied the Southern Cameroons and
established its colonial rule there, complete with its structures,
and its administrative, military and police personnel, applying a
system and operating in a language alien to the Southern Cameroons.
Respondent State continues to exercise a colonial sovereignty over
the territory to this day. But according to the fantastic claim of
Respondent State the Southern Cameroons is part of its territory that
was transferred back to it by the UN and the UK Government. Yet the
stubborn fact of the matter is that Respondent State is a latter-day
colonizer. It has grabbed and is trying to steal territory it has no
rightful claim to at all. Its conduct is in violation of
international law and a breach of its obligations under the African
Charter.
Complainants have always argued and adduced
conclusive evidence in support, that the occupation and assumption of
a colonial sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons by Respondent
State amounts to a violation of Articles 19 and 20 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which outlaw
domination, and colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.
Article 19 places an absolute ban on the domination of one people by
another. Article 20 emphatically asserts the right of every people to
existence, to self-determination, and of resistance to colonialism
or oppression by resorting to any internationally recognized means of
resistance.
Reliefs Sought from the African Commission
The substance of the complaint of the people of the
Southern Cameroons is that the rights recognized to the peoples under
the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights have for the people
of the Southern Cameroons, been suppressed by La République du
Cameroun (the Respondent State) through domination and colonization
in violation of the Charter; and that la République du Cameroun is
guilty of a series of gross massive continuing and reliably attested
human rights violations in respect of the named citizens and groups of
citizens of the Southern Cameroons.
The Commission is requested to find la République du
Cameroun (the Respondent State) guilty of these violations; to
reaffirm the inherent, unquestionable and inalienable right of the
people of the Southern Cameroons to self-determination and thus the
enjoyment of all the rights recognised to the peoples under this
Charter; to reaffirm the right of the people of the Southern
Cameroons to live in peace and security as a free people; to call on
States parties to the Charter to assist the people of the Southern
Cameroons in their liberation struggle against the foreign domination
of La République du Cameroun; to call on la République du Cameroun
to end its continuing violation of the human rights of individual
Southern Cameroons Citizens; and to find that victims of rights
violations by la République du Cameroun are entitled to adequate
compensation.
Admissibility of the Case
At the 35th Session of the Commission held in Banjul
in May/June 2004 the admissibility of the case was considered. At
that hearing La République du Cameroun was represented by an 8-man
delegation led by Dr. Dion Ngute, Minister Delegate in the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.
The Respondent State argued that the communication
does not meet the requirements of Article 56 (2) because the
Complainants are advocating for secession under the pretext of
allegations of violation of the provisions of the African Charter and
other human rights instruments. While conceding that the right to
self-determination is an inalienable right, the Respondent State
argued that this right should not “be interpreted as authorising or
encouraging any measure that would partly or wholly compromise the
entire territory or the political unity of sovereign and independent
States”
After satisfying itself that the communication
satisfied the seven conditions stipulated in article 56 of the
African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Communication was
declared admissible by the African Commission on Human & Peoples’
Rights. At the 36th Session of the Commission, held in Dakar in
Nov/Dec 2004, the Respondent State demanded that a copy of the
decision on the admissibility of the Communication be made available
to them, failing which it would cease to co-operate with the Commission.
The merit stage of the Case was therefore adjourned to the 37th
Session scheduled to take place in Banjul in April/May 2005.
It may be recalled that at the 36th Session, at which
Humphrey Mbinglo represented the Complainants, Dr. Dion Ngute,
speaking on behalf of the Respondent State, said that the SCNC has
been in factions and that la République du Cameroun did not know
which faction to deal with. The Respondent State said it had now
identified some SCNC individuals with whom it was discussing. He went
on to name the four individuals as: Isaac Oben, Theodore Leke, Samuel
Tita and Gregory Agbor. All four individuals were present in Dakar in
the corridors of the Commission. The Commission listened to the
statement from the Respondent State without comment.
The Merit Stage
At the 37th Session of the Commission, held in Banjul
from April 27 to May 11, the Commission heard oral presentation made
by the Complainant (Southern Cameroons) and the response of
Respondent State (la République du Cameroun). The Complainants
reiterated that their submissions at the Admissibility and Merit
stages of this case establish conclusively the elements of ‘people’,
‘domination’, ‘colonialism’ and ‘oppression’: the people of the
Southern Cameroons are without any shadow of a doubt a people, a
people under the domination of the people of Respondent State, a people
under the colonial rule of Respondent State, and a people oppressed
by Respondent State. Complainants repeated the following
incontrovertible facts:
(i) that the Southern Cameroons and République du
Cameroun were two separate Class B UN Trust Territories under two
separate colonial Authorities with well-defined international
boundaries (see 1958 Map showing the Southern Cameroons as a UN Trust
Territory under UK Administration; Nigeria is to the west and the
Trust Territory of French Cameroun is to the east);
(ii) that the Plebiscite Questions as framed by the
UN invited the people of the Southern Cameroons to pronounce
themselves on the achievement of independence by ‘joining’ either
Nigeria or République du Cameroun;
(iii) that the pre-plebiscite Agreements between the
Southern Cameroons and Respondent State and the voting at the UN in
April 1961 leading to the adoption of Resolution 1608 clearly
envisaged three concomitant events to happen on 1 October 1961,
namely, achievement of independence by the Southern Cameroons, entry
into a federal association with République du Cameroun and the
consequential termination of the trusteeship over the Southern
Cameroons;
(iv) that operative paragraph 5 of Resolution 1608
called on the Government of the Southern Cameroons, the UK and
République du Cameroun to finalize before 1 October 1961 the
arrangements by which the agreed and published policies on a federal
association would be implemented;
(v) that said paragraph 5 was not and has never been implemented;
(vi) that on 1 September 1961 Respondent State passed
an annexation law asserting sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons;
and
(vii) that on 1 October 1961 Respondent State sent
its troops into the Southern Cameroons, grabbed it as part of its
territory, and has since been exercising a colonial sovereignty over
it, the fierce protest of the people notwithstanding
The Complainants concluded their presentation as
follows: “the self-determination process of the people of the
Southern Cameroons is irreversible. Respondent States is grossly
mistaken in its blind faith in the use of force, in the use of
corrupted chiefs and other reactionary forces in the Southern
Cameroons as fifth columnists, to maintain its colonial subjugation of
the Southern Cameroons. The lesson of history, ancient and modern,
shows how unsustainable and unrealistic such expedients always have
been. And the Lord said to Moses, go to Pharaoh and tell him: LET MY
PEOPLE GO!”
The Respondent State, replying in French, informed
the Commission that it did not have much to say because the leader of
their delegation, the Minister Delegate at the Ministry of External
Affairs was not present. He further said that they had never seen the
map of the Southern Cameroons and requested a copy of, together with
Complainants oral presentation, so as to enable them to study both.
He further wondered aloud the capacity in which the Complainants are
acting before the Commission, saying the Respondent State was in
possession of a document from “the Chief of the Southern Cameroons”.
(Presumably one Mr. Isaac Oben who, together with three other
individuals, has always been tagged along by the Respondent State
since the 36th Session in Dakar).
Questions and Clarifications Sought by the Commission
The Commission asked for clarification on the following issues:
1. How do the Complainants reconcile their claim to
self-determination with the OAU Cairo Declaration of 1964 on the
inviolability of boundaries inherited at independence?
2. Whether the People of the Southern Cameroons were ethnically connected with the people of la République du Cameroun?
The Complainants responded by confirming their total
subscription to the terms of the OAU Cairo Declaration that States
must respect the borders, which they inherited at the time they
attained independence. Complainants called the Commission’s attention
to the fact that the Respondent State, a former UN Trust Territory
under French Administration, achieved independence on January 1, 1960
and was admitted to membership of the United Nations on September 20,
1960. At no time prior to or at the independence of the Respondent
State or at the time of its admission to the United Nations was the
Southern Cameroons ever a part of the Respondent State.
The international law principle of Uti Possedetis
Juris ordains that the boundaries of a colonial territory become
frozen on the date of its attainment of independence. Respondent
State’s claim to territory outside the territorial framework it
inherited on its attainment of independence could only be
expansionist, hegemonistic and colonialist, outlawed under international
law.
On the second question, the Complainant stated that
there is no substantial ethnic connection between the Southern
Cameroons as a whole and the people of the Respondent State as a
whole; but that along the common border between the Southern
Cameroons and la République du Cameroun, one occasionally finds some
communities astride the common border between the two countries.
However, there is nothing unique about this phenomenon in Africa. For
example, there are many tribes in the territory of the Respondent
State which spill over into the contiguous states of Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic and Nigeria.
Along the common Nigeria – Southern Cameroons border, there are
communities which are astride Nigeria and the Southern Cameroons.
Therefore even if such connection existed to a substantial degree, it
cannot be the basis for laying any claim to the territory of the
Southern Cameroons.
The Commission thanked the parties for their
presentations and indicated that it would rule on the request made by
the Respondent State to be given a written copy of the oral
presentation of the Complainants and for a map of the Southern
Cameroons. The Commission did deliberate and came out shortly
afterwards to inform Complainants that a written copy of the oral
presentation and a map of the Southern Cameroons should be made
available to the Respondent State through the Commission. We have
according sent to the Commission a copy of a 1958 map of the UN Trust
Territory of Southern Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration
together with a copy of the Boundary Treaty signed on January 9, 1931
by Graeme Thomson, Governor of the Colony and Protectorate of
Nigeria and Monsieur. Marchand, Gouverneur Commissaire de la République
Francaise au Cameroun, defining the boundary between French and
British Cameroons.
This brought to a close the formal hearing of the
matter by African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights. It is
expected that the decision on the merits of the case shall be
delivered in the coming months.
Link Between the Case Before the Human Rights Commission and the Verdict of the Federal High Court of Abuja.
It will be recalled that on February 14, 2002 a suit
was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja by 12 Southern
Cameroonians acting for themselves and on behalf of the peoples of
the Southern Cameroons, against the Attorney General of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. The Plaintiffs requested the following reliefs
from the Court:
1. A Declaration that under Articles 1 and 20(1) (2)
and (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria, 1990 the Federal Republic of Nigeria has a legal duty to
place before the International Court of Justice and the United
Nations General Assembly and ensure diligent prosecution to conclusion
the claim of the Peoples of the Southern Cameroons to
self-determination and their declaration of independence;
2. An Order compelling the government of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria to place before the International Court of
Justice and the United Nations General Assembly, and ensure diligent
prosecution to conclusion the claim of the peoples of the Southern
Cameroons to self-determination and declaration of independence.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the Government
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria whether by herself, her servants,
agents and or representations or otherwise howsoever from treating or
continuing to treat or regard the Southern Cameroons and the peoples
of the Territory as an integral part of la République du Cameroun.
After considering the admissibility as well as the substance of the
case, the Federal High Court in Abuja finally issued the following
ruling on March 5, 2002:
1. The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall institute a case before the International Court of Justice concerning the following:
a. Whether the Union envisaged under the Southern
Cameroons Plebiscite 1961 between La République du Cameroun and
Southern Cameroons took effect as contemplated by the relevant United
Nations Resolutions particularly United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 1352 (XIV) of 16th October 1959 and United Nations
Trusteeship Council Resolution 2013 (XXIV) of 31st May 1960.
b. Whether the termination by the Government of the
United Kingdom of its trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons on 30th
September 1961 without ensuring prior implementation of the
Constitutional arrangements under which the Southern Cameroons and La
République du Cameroun were to unite as one Federal State was not in
breach of Articles 3 and 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement for the
Territory of Cameroons Under British Administration approved by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 13th December 1946, the United
Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1352 of 16th October 1959; 1608
of 21st April 1961, and United Nations Trusteeship Council
Resolution 2013 (XXIV) of May 31 1960 and Article 76 (b) of the
Charter of the United Nations;
c. Was the assumption of the Sovereign Powers on 1st
October 1961 and the continued exercise of same by the Government of
La République du Cameroun over Southern Cameroons (after termination
by the Government of the United Kingdom of its Trusteeship over the
territory) legal and valid when the Union between the Southern
Cameroons and La République du Cameroun contemplated by the Southern
Cameroons Plebiscite 1961 had not legally taken effect?
d. Whether the peoples of Southern Cameroons are not
entitled to self-determination within their clearly defined territory
separate from La République du Cameroun;
e. Whether it is the Southern Cameroons and not La
République du Cameroun that shares a maritime boundary with the
Federal Republic of Nigeria;
2. The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall take any
other measures as may be necessary to place the case of the peoples
of the geographical territory known as at 1st October 1960 as
Southern Cameroons for self-determination before the United Nations
General Assembly and any other relevant international organisations.
Conclusion
The history of the world shows that all oppressed
people, wherever they are, sooner or later will stand up and fight
for their freedom. The clarion call by President George Bush, of the
United States during his inaugural speech in January 2005 for all
oppressed people to rise up and fight for their freedom was heard
loud and clear in the Southern Cameroons.
The decision of Her Majesty’s Government to
unceremoniously withdraw the protective force of the British army on
September 30, 1961 without having exercised due diligence in the
termination of the 1945 United Nations Trust Agreement over the
Cameroons, in compliance with relevant United Nations Resolutions
(cited above in the judgement of the Federal High Court of Abuja), is
primarily responsible for exposing the people of this territory to the
abuse that the people have suffered after the military occupation of
the territory by la République du Cameroun since October 1, 1961.
This was a serious error in judgement which needs to be corrected
with the utmost urgency by Her Majesty’s Government and the United
Nations because it has finally crystallized into armed confrontation
in the Bakassi Peninsula, pitting two Commonwealth member States (The
Federal Republic of Nigeria and La République du Cameroun) against
each other. It is for this reason that we have decided to forward a
copy of this communiqué with an appropriate covering letter to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England, in her capacity as Head of the
Commonwealth and also because it was to her father King George VI
that the UN Trust over the Cameroons was granted in 1945.
The people of the Southern Cameroons are grateful for
the farsightedness of those who conceived the need for Africa to
have a Charter for Human and Peoples Rights. This powerful instrument
has now been recognised by the Federal High Court of Abuja as
placing an obligation on the Government of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (which ratified the treaty in 1990) to exercise due diligence to
assist the Southern Cameroons to attain its self-determination.
In the case of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples Rights, the mere fact that Communication No 266/2003 was
found admissible by the Commission, is already a victory that the
Southern Cameroons right to self-determination is recognised under
the Charter. The conclusion is that the colonial grip which la
République du Cameroun has exercised over the territory of the Southern
Cameroons, with disastrous consequences, both for the Southern
Cameroons as well as for its own people, is being slowly dissolved by
the moral authority of the African Charter of Human and Peoples
Rights, which la République du Cameroun believed itself free to
wantonly violate with impunity, after having ratified the treaty into
law.
Done in Buea, Southern Cameroons on May 10, 2005.
Signed:
Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gumne (70)