Recalling….
In Part I of my Critique of brother Mwalimu George Ngwane’s proposition “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking”, I focused on decrypting our understanding of “re-unification”. I posited, hopefully, with historical evidence that, we should speak instead of “Unification”, as the two “Cameroo[u]ns” never existed before as a single Political entity to be re-unified”. I also hopefully, convinced our reader that, Southern Cameroons was significantly “decolonized” by the time its Politicians alighted in Foumban and “united” with French Cameroun, where Parties like the UPC was still illegal. Finally, that Critique wrapped-up with my proposition that, we must view Conflict from another perspective – as a frontier of creativity and of transformation; and separate the word “Conflict from the “armed” abomination which now characterizes the republican attempt to re-set our relationship that was so sorely missed in 1961.
So, in continuation……..
The Mwalimu goes on to establish that, his Paper, “seeks to suggest the role and relevance of exploring a multilateral Constitutional Convention in Cameroon as a foray into conflict resolution and peacebuilding”
First of all, for the reasons already given, let us nuance the word “Conflict” because, as a developing Nation – yet, far away from our best, we cannot afford the luxury of sustaining the negative connotation attributed to “Conflict”. We must separate the word from “armed – the abomination” and necessarily view Conflict as a frontier of creativity and or of transformation, and instead of speaking of “Resolution”, we must speak of “Leadership and Management” – how in Leadership, we manage our different perceptions, perspectives, our wants and needs, as we not just venture, but intentionally embark unto our development journey, wherein Peace is not just a “Snap-shot of the current”, or a “Static lifeless State of affairs; but a living, breathing outcome or “Change of State” consciously instituted through our unanimous self-interests.
Next, the Mwalimu’s chronicles the Constitutional processes in Nigeria with the intro: “The process involved in engineering a constitution can earn a nation with either a people-centered or politician-decreed supreme law of the land. Most constitutions today owe their relevance and sustainability to the fact that citizens hunger for micro-governance and bottom-up decision making”
This timeline is significant because, from the outset of Decolonization Politics by Southern Cameroons founding fathers; from the Cameroon Youth League (CYL) aligned with Nnamdi Azikiwe’s NCNC in 1944, to the Transition period of 1961, Southern Cameroons was a part of Nigeria. And as a political entity, “Nigeria meant; the Colony of Lagos, the Protectorate of Nigeria and the Trust Territory of the Cameroons (Northern and Southern)”.
I will share evidence that Southern Cameroons Political leaders were consummate Constitutional actors before the “orchestrated” Foumban Fiasco.
I leave it to the reader to judge how to bridge the two Notions (Nature versus Nurture) regarding the Mwalimu's grounded thesis that Constitutionalism may be the panacea.
The Nature of actor in the Constitution, versus the Nurturing brought about by a Constitution? What balance?
Southern Cameroons Constitutional Journey, 1948 - 1958
So, constitutionally speaking, we must begin with the decision in 1948 to revise the “unpopular” Richards Constitution that nominated Representatives, to the more Democratic Macpherson one of Electing Parliamentarians that came into force in 1951. Yes, soon after, Southern Cameroons was plunged in Political Crisis after Endeley’s declaration of “Benevolent Neutrality” for some of the Cameroon Bloc, in “Nigerian” Politics. See the “Eastern Crisis” that resulted from this Constitutional review. In every review, we must beware of “whose Constitution, anyway; what perspective and timeframes?”
The Independentist fervor in the Africans was to force the hand of the British into yet another Constitutional review in London, England, two years later in 1953, as even the Macpherson Constitution was itself, inadequate as a pre-independence vehicle.
It should be noted here that, the KNC Leader of the Southern Cameroons Bloc challenged the right of some “prominent opposition” Southern Cameroons personalities, to participate in this 1953 Constitutional Conference. He was overruled by the [British] Colonial Secretary who argued that, even minority Cameroons views too should be heard. Such acrimony persisted and characterized Southern Cameroons Politics running up to Elections that same year in 1953.
In fact, KPP (Opposition) leaders were to be accused just before of wanting to “Sell” Southern Cameroons to the IGBOs (alluding to Nnamdi Azikiwe’s leadership of the NCNC). A-times after the plebiscite much later (1961) pro-re-unification (with Nigeria) supporters were mocked “When is the boat coming to take you the 98,000 to Nigeria?” (This was the number that would vote for re-unification with Nigeria and lose).
The KNC’s tactics succeeded, they won the 1953 Elections, yet in 1954 the KNC did an about turn and attempted an Alliance with Awolowo’s Action Group (recall the IGBO accusation on the KPP). Pundits argue that this inconsistency partly led to the KNC’s defeat, and KNDPs emergence a year later in 1955.
In 1954 there was another Constitutional Conference – the January – February Lagos Constitutional Conference. After this Conference which focused significantly of financial implications of quasi-autonomy, Southern Cameroons was to seize being a part of the Eastern region, it would gain quasi-Federal Status but would remain a part of the Federation of Nigeria. Significantly, Northern Cameroons expressed her strong interest to remain a part of Northern Nigeria. The 1954 Constitutional Conference was perhaps the first sign of a missed opportunity for Southern Cameroons, opening herself up for manipulations and for things to come.
In 1957 another Constitutional Conference took place in London, England, that properly cemented Southern Cameroons Political identity transitioning it from “Quasi-Federal territory” to be known as Southern Cameroons. This Conference was to mark another milestone towards the British intention to relinquish control of Southern Cameroons, and the signs were clear, that, it was getting to time for Southern Cameroons Politicians to make up their minds like Northern Cameroons, regarding where they would wish to be.
At this time, the only the Options open to Southern Cameroons were of; remaining in the Federation of Nigeria (like Northern Cameroons) or the unlikely Option of remaining a Trust Territory, as Nigeria was actively preparing for Independence – there was never any Option in London 1957 for “Unification with French Cameroun”.
Main take-homes of the 1957 Constitutional Conference included an enlarged legislature of 26 elected members, agreement on House of Chiefs and Women got the vote.
Then came in 1958, the London Constitutional Conference with the main item on the agenda being a firm date for the independence of Nigeria. (Note that despite its Federal Status, Southern Cameroons was still a part of Nigeria). Southern Cameroons sent a big delegation of eight to that Conference drawn from three political parties; KNC (4), KPP (2) and KNDP (2). After the Conference, the Southern Cameroons Politicians returned in 1958 and went straight into campaigns towards the 1959 Elections which the then KNC/KPP alliance lost to the KNDP. This was de facto, the last Constitutional Conference for Southern Cameroons before Foumban 1961.
From 1951 to 1958 Southern Cameroons had gone through five (4.5) Constitutional processes four (04) of which the leading Politicians were personally involved and 0.5 – the top-down Macpherson Constitution. I am unaware of how many such Constitutional processes the Politicians of then French Cameroun had gone through.
What we know is that the Southern Cameroonian Politicians who were in Foumban two years after the KNDP victory of 1959 were seasoned men, experienced in matters of Constitutionalism, even if they didn’t get to do the drafting of the Constitutions themselves.
So, what went wrong just before, during and after Foumban?
Counsel from an authentic Eye-witness
I will end Part II of my Critique of our Mwalimu’s article: “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking” with a quote from NN Mbile’s Cameroon Political Story, appropriately, dealing with Constitutional Matters:
“Now, returning to the Cameroonian character, what has held the Cameroon Nation together more than anything else is not the “grand” Constitution we wrote, not the angels of civil servants and politicians who run our affairs, but the spirit of tolerance in the character of the Cameroonian”.
“When all is said and done perhaps, we may say that the Cameroonian, due to his character, his often choice of fragmentation to escape confrontation, his capacity to bear patiently the burden of his mistakes; this specimen of the human species has [until 2016] in a region of turbulence, been able to survive intact, to lay a foundation for himself and for posterity”.
So, what went wrong in 2016?
How can Constitutionalism help? Before Foumban, Southern Cameroons Political Leaders were arguably more schooled in Constitutional matters.........yet..........
Read the Sequels to the critique of Mwalimu George Ngwane’s article“ “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking” : only here on Moneytreeslight. You may wish to support via MoMo +237 653 609 855
Author: Peter Ngembeni MBILE. Peter is a Cameroonian and holds a PhD in Forest Policy and Economics. He is a Sustainable Development Specialist, a Southern Cameroons History Enthusiast and a Political Commentator.
Subscribe to receive New Articles in your Inbox at https://www.moneytreeslight.com/ and register
댓글