Christmas and Cameroon's Redemption

   Christmas and Cameroon’s Redemption

Beyond the festivities of Christmas, Cameroonian Christians are once again challenged to live up to the core values of their religion, and impact positively on their socio-cultural and political environment.

                                        By Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai*

     The birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated every December 25, is the portentous event of the Incarnation, from which Christianity draws its essence. Christians the world over, mark the birth of the Son of God and the Savior of mankind, whose spectacular life of virtue, revolutionary teaching and sacrificial death on the Cross of Calvary, form the basis of the over two thousand year-old Christian religion. Even in a world overrun by secularism and materialism and other social forces impacting negatively on religion and morality, a world witnessing an inexorable decline in Christian values and Christian worship especially in Western industrialized societies, the continued influence of Jesus Christ in a global context is unmistakable.

     Across the globe, Christmas has come to be associated with the festive spirit, family reunions and the celebration of family life and friendship with the exchange of greetings, visits and gifts. It is that time of the year when many are inspired to stretch out the hand of fellowship and solidarity in charity and thanksgiving to all who have survived the stresses and the strains of the passing year. The legend of St. Nicholas, the patron saint of all generous people played out in the form of Father Christmas or Santa Claus, has always excited the curiosity of children, while orphanages, hospitals and prisons will often witness a boost in charity visits at this time.

     For Cameroonians, however, Christmas 2013 brings to a close a year of shocks and pains and blood and tears. Cameroonians have been struggling to cope with bad governance, decrepit social infrastructure, worsening economic fortunes and widespread social insecurity. And as the year draws to a close, many are counting their losses with a fair dose of stoicism and characteristic hope. Given the terrible scenario playing out in the country, manifested in mass poverty, high corruption in government, gross official recklessness and near zero governance, this Christmas should serve as a poignant reminder to those in power, to embrace service to humanity and improvement of people’s welfare as a central theme of their governance activities. This, in any event, is enjoined of them in the 1996 Constitution, which Mr. President swore to uphold.

     In spite of the agony and the social chaos that have endured in the country, however, the celebratory spirit of the Cameroonian will not be dampened. The incurable optimism in the Cameroonian; their resilience and undying spirit, now obviously stretched to the limit, is what appears to have secured the peaceful quiet that prevails amid the subsisting trauma of life in the country. Perhaps in the view of many, Christmas is too important a milestone in the Christian life cycle to be abandoned to the vagaries of disoriented and misguided politicians and robbers in government who are in the habit of distributing food items to the poor during Christmas, as if the beneficiaries have no need to eat outside of the month of December. Ideally, government should do better to embark on measures to empower such poor people to feed themselves all year round. Many Christians will go out to worship and to celebrate, if only to demonstrate to their so-called leaders that they do indeed have a substantial stake in this country, and that despite the wholesale plunder of the treasury, they cannot and will not be denied the conduct of their religious obligations and festivities.

     The Cameroonian condition has taken on a life of its own, however, somber such life. The mindless looting that is going on in the country in the name of governance, with telling outcomes in mass poverty and collateral damage, has become an embarrassing trademark of public office. Cameroon’s social conundrum today is exacerbated by the heightened incidence of corruption and obscene display of stolen wealth by public officials without due regard for the majority of citizens who continue to wallow in poverty and misery. The result has been rising criminality by unemployed youths who have resorted to armed robbery, such that travelling home for Christmas has become risky and daunting as weathering the siege of war. The government has dropped the ball allowing bike riders to take virtually every principal city in the country hostage; all in the name of survival. The bend skin menace (for want of a better expression) has been allowed to fester for too long and has now degenerated into some kind of a low-intensity insurgency against state authority. It has gotten to a stage where the government is now helpless and clueless on what to do to address the issue. This is an affront on the government and the people of Cameroon that is unacceptable.

     Christmas is, however, the proclamation of good news. It is a celebration of joy and of hope. The Christ, whose birth is marked every December 25, has given the world a roadmap to abundant life, peace and prosperity. Taken seriously and applied in our individual and corporate lives, the values preached by Jesus, namely sacrificial love, justice, compassion, leadership by service, forgiveness, humility and purity of heart, will transform Cameroon for the better. The disposition towards crass materialism, excessive wealth accumulation and blind pursuit of pleasure is clearly at variance with the spirit of this holy day.

     And so beyond the festivities of Christmas, Christians in Cameroon are once again challenged to live up to the core values of their religion, and impact positively on their socio-cultural and political environment. There is need for sober reflection on the moral imperatives of the political and economic choices before the nation. The values which symbolize the life of Christ – love, truth, justice, humility, service, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, remain elusive as Cameroonians struggle for the soul of the nation. Incumbent and aspiring Cameroonian leaders must abandon the path of selfishness, greed, primitive accumulation and inordinate ambitions if the country would prosper. Christians and non-Christians alike must embrace the higher value of sacrificial leadership that make for lasting peace and prosperity.

Merry Christmas and a more prosperous New Year 2014; to all Cameroonians.

*Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai is a Public Intellectual and graduate of Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he was Managing Editor of the Harvard Journal of African-American Public Policy. A former Research Analyst for Freedom House, he is a Consultant and lives in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.



Cameroon:The Civil Status Registration Ordinance

JUDGE DIVINE NJIKANG METIEGE IS A PRESIDING AND EXAMINING MAGISTRATE AT THE MBENGWI (MOMO DIVISION) HIGH COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. THIS DOCUMENT WAS FIRST PRESENTED ON AUGUST 8, 2013 DURING THE MONTHLY JUDICIARY CLUB MEETING IN MBENGWI. However, some modifications have been made from when the document was presented to the Judicial Panel.

THE CIVIL STATUS REGISTRATION AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE STATUS OF PHYSICAL PERSONS AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AS IT RELATES TO BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.

        Law N⁰ 2011/011 of May 6, 2011 amending and completing certain provisions of Ordinance N⁰ 81/02 of June 29, 1981 on the organization of the Civil status Registration and Provisions relating to the status of physical persons is the instrument to determine the legal status of persons in Cameroon. In this regard, it creates and extinguishes status such as births, marriages and deaths.  These different statuses are evidenced by issuing of certificates drawn up by a civil status registrar. Given the legal implications that arose from these statuses, the Law N⁰ 2011/011 of May 6, 2011,  in  articles 4, 5 and 6 obliges every Cameroonian, whether residing in Cameroon or elsewhere, to declare his/her birth, deaths and marriages with the competent civil status registrar of his/her area.  Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, constitute a criminal offence punishable under section 370 of the Penal Code. This also applies to foreigners residing in Cameroon.

From these legal implications flows a bundle of rights, obligations and consequences.

                                               BIRTHS

    ARTICLE 30-33 (NEW) of the Law is to the effect that, every birth shall be declared to the civil status registrar of the place of birth within 60 days following such birth. Where a child is born in the hospital or other medical institutions, the head of the hospital or in his absence, the doctor or any person who attended the birth shall be bound to declare the birth of the child within 30 days of such birth. If the birth was not declared within the period stated above, the parents of the child have an additional period of 60 days within which, he/she must make the declaration before the civil status registrar of the place of birth.

  ARTICLE 32 (NEW) is to the effect that births declared after the expiry of the periods referred to above, may be registered at the instance of the competent State Counsel seized of the matter, who shall move the competent court within the six months of the birth.

  ARTICLE 33 (NEW) Stipulates that if a birth was not declared within six months, it can be registered by the civil status registrar only by way of a judgment of the competent court, and in accordance with the conditions laid down in article 23 and 24 of the Law. (Applications for rectification or reconstitution of civil status certificate shall be brought before the competent court under which falls the civil status registry in which the certificate was or ought to have been drawn up. Such applications shall state, inter alia, the full name of the applicant, the full name, affiliation, date and place of birth of the person whose certificate is to be rectified or reconstituted. Detail reasons justifying reconstitution or rectification, full name ages and place of residence of witnesses, and the civil status registry where the certificate was or ought to have been drawn. The court seized of the application under the above condition must, before any decision is taken, forward the application to the Legal Department for purposes of inquiry and to ensure that:

1)      another civil status certificate of the same type does not already exist for the same person; and,

2)       to ensure that the witnesses presented by the application are likely either to have been actually present at the birth, marriage or death they are attesting to, or, to furnish proof of the same, that, the declaratory judgment sought will not have the effect of fraudulently changing the full name, affiliation, date of birth or death, in marital status.

The inquiry (is necessary) but shall not be obligatory in the case of applications concerning minors less than 15 years old.)

If a person is found in possession of two birth certificates only the oldest in date shall be taken into consideration without the prejudice to any legal action.

  A birth certificate is indicative of the fact that a human being has been born alive. It also informs of a person’s affiliation if he or she is an illegitimate, recognized, adopted or legitimate child. These are different statuses which must be reflected in a birth certificate at every giving time. As a matter of fact, a person’s birth certificate should be able to reveal his/her complete identity. Unfortunately, in Cameroon today, the situation is the reverse. It is therefore important for the lawmakers to enact bills, which ought to be signed into law, to rectify the said problem because birth certificates can hardly be relied upon for information. This is so because the birth certificates only provide inadequate information (like the place of birth) of individuals and not specifics like the hospital of birth. Firstly, the paternity often given to the wrong person, since tradition hold that a child born out of wedlock belongs to the grandfather or the relative who is raising the child up, to enable them claim family allowance from social insurance fund.                                             

   As such, the natural or biological father is hardly ever known. This is another aspect the lawmakers must rectify because it contravenes the provision of Article 34(2) which demands that, a space for father should be left blank where the natural father is unknown. In this way, it is easier for the natural father’s name to be inserted as soon as he recognizes or legitimizes the child as per Article 41 and 44 of the Law which states that, the recognition or legitimation of a child born out of wedlock shall be established by court decision. The same shall apply to cases of adoption. However, delivery shall be equivalent to recognition of the child by the mother and marriage celebrated after recognition shall imply legitimation of the children recognized as born of the spouses. A point to note is that recognition and legitimation, excepting adoptive legitimation shall be based on the blood relationship. Once the relationship has been established, no one may raise objection to recognition. Court judgments on recognition, legitimation and adoption shall be inscribed as marginal notes on the birth certificates.

  Recognition of children born out of wedlock may be done by declaration made before the civil status registrar during birth registration. In such a case, the declaration of the presumed father shall be accepted by the civil status registrar after consent of the mother and in the presence of two witnesses. The civil status registrar shall identify the parents and shall transcribe the declaration into a register numbered and initialed by the president of the court of First Instance and kept for that purpose. Such declaration shall be signed by the father, the mother, witnesses and the civil status registrar before the birth certificate is drawn up. If one of the parents is a minor, his consent shall be given by the father, mother or guardian. Consent shall be given verbally before the civil status registrar or in writing dully legalized and annexed to the register. This procedure shall not apply when there is a dispute especially if paternity is claimed by several persons before the establishment of the civil status certificate.

    Moreover, anything to the contrary creates a cloud on the parentage of the child  and it is tantamount to forgery contrary to, and punishable under Section 314 of the Cameroon Penal Code i.e. forgery. S.314 (1) is to the effect that, whoever forges or alters, whether in its substance or in the signature of parties or witnesses or in its date, any private document having effect of an obligation, discharge or disposition shall be punished with imprisonment for from three to eight years and with fine of from 50.000FCFA to 1.000.000FCFA.

S. 314(3) of the Cameroon Penal is to the effect, whoever makes use of such a document shall be punished in like manner as if he forged the document.

   Secondly, today, most birth certificates in Cameroon reflect the wrong ages. The tendency is for people to change their ages following the indication of the time because of the laxity, on the part of both court and the civil status registrar in the issuance of birth certificates. It is therefore not strange to see one person with ten birth certificates which may indicate that she had her first child at the age of three. Strange!! Isn’t it?

   The importance of age cannot be over emphasized. One’s age has a bearing on his civil right as to voting, his personal right as to when to contract a marriage etc. Age also determines one’s criminal responsibilities and a person’s capacity to enter to some contracts. In effect, one’s age is such a determinant factor in all areas of life. That explains why people have a multiplicity of birth certificates just to put themselves within the demand at the time. This attitude is criminal, and is contrary to the provisions Article 2 of the Law which is to the effect that a birth, marriage and death certificates, once issued is intangible and final. This means that once you have been issued a birth certificate it cannot be changed nor the facts altered except by a court decision. Age affects the foreigner’s right to Cameroon nationality. A foreigner born in Cameroon has a right to elect Cameroonian nationality 6 months before attaining majority before the court. This is because Cameroon does not recognize dual nationality as of this moment.

   We are therefore calling on the courts (Magistrates and Registrars) to make sure that, all, the required documents have been produced such as marriage certificates and a delivery certificates before establishing a birth certificate or a declaratory judgment. Another point of note is for these officers to ensure that the birth certificates or declaratory judgment is within their jurisdiction as per Article 30 of the Law, to ease investigation. Today, a proper investigation still remains a dream because; the provisions of Article 30 which states that, a birth shall be declared to the civil status registrar of the place of birth within 60 days following such birth, are never respected..

   Furthermore, where a child has been recognized, legitimized or adopted, these facts should be inscribed as marginal notes on the birth certificate, mentioning the court’s decision or marriage certificate which has empowered them to do so. See Article 41(3) Court judgments on recognition, legitimation and adoption shall be inscribed as marginal notes on the birth certificates.

    As earlier mentioned, a person’s birth certificate should speak for itself, because it has its bearing and gives rise to legal implications on paternity, maintenance, nationality, and inheritance.

    An illegitimate child has the right to maintenance and education from the natural father. Initially, the law provided them with no legal safeguards. However, a recognized child has similar rights but very limited rights of inheritance in cases where the parents remain unmarried. Legitimate and adopted children have the same absolute rights to all the items mentioned above such as rights to maintenance, custody, control and inheritance.

                                                             MARRIAGE

            A marriage certificate, which is a proof of marriage, signifies that one has graduated from a single status to a married status. A marriage shall be celebrated by a civil status registrar of the place of birth or residence of one or both of the spouses to be as indicated in Article 48 of the Law. The following are therefore the content of a marriage certificate:

1)      Name of the main or secondary civil status centre or name of the centre to which it is mainly attached

2)      Name surname, date and place of birth, nationality, profession and domicile of the husband

3)      Consent of the parents in case of minor children

4)      Place and date of the celebration of the marriage

5)      Mention of the type of marriage: whether it is polygamy or monogamy,

6)      Mention of management of property either community or separation of property,

7)      Name and surname of witnesses,

8)      Name and surname of the civil status registrar and secretary,

9)      Signature of the spouse’s witnesses and the civil status registrar and secretary.

*Mention of the marriage shall be made in the margin of the birth certificate of each of the spouses in compliance with article 19 of the Law and by the initiative of the competent civil status registrar.  Failure to forward a copy of such registration shall be punished by a fine of five hundred francs (500FCFA) to be imposed by the competent state Counsel. In case of divorce, mention of it shall be made on the birth and marriage certificate of the spouses on the initiative of the legal department.

Article 19 (NEW) (1) States, “where reference to a civil status certificate must be made in the margin of a certificate already registered, this shall be done automatically or at the request of one of the parties.”

(2) “The civil status registrar who drew up or registered the certificate, to which the reference shall be made, shall forthwith make such reference in the register in his possession and forward an extract to the court of first instance territorially competent and a copy to the national civil status centre.”

(3) “Where the certificate on to which marginal notes must be made was drawn up or registered in another civil status registry, notice shall be given within 15 days to the civil status registry preserving the certificate and to the national center.”

   It automatically becomes an offense for spouses married monogamously to contract another marriage without first dissolving the previous one. Only a polygamous marriage authorizes a man to contract as many marriages as he deems fit, while a woman can only be married to one man at a given time. A marriage certificate therefore, affects the party’s capacity in a monogamous marriage of remarrying when the marriage has not been dissolved. Any attempt to apply one’s self contrary to these laws so inscribed constitutes the crime of bigamy, an offense contrary to and punishable under Section 359 of the Cameroon Penal Code (BIGAMY).  Whosoever is in a polygamous contractual marriage, who contracts a monogamous marriage before the dissolution of all previous marriages or being married under the codified law, contracts any marriage before dissolution of that former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two months to a maximum of two years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of 25.000FCFA to 500.000FCFA. It is important to know that the burden of proving any dissolution of any previous marriage is on the accused.

   A civil status registrar should investigate the marital status of a person through publications of banns before contracting any marriage between parties. Many women are known to have suffered the undesired effects of a marriage that never was.

   A marriage is a contract from which flow rights and duties. One of such rights is the co-habitation. As such, where one party abandons or deserts another, he/she is liable to criminal sanctions under section 358 of the Cameroon Penal Code for desertion. Section 358 of the Penal Code states that, any spouse or parent who without just cause evades whether by desertion of the family home or otherwise however, the whole or part of his/her moral or material obligations towards his/her spouse or children shall be punished with imprisonment for three months to one year or with a fine from 5.000FCFA to 500.000FCFA or with both such imprisonment and fine. Where a spouse alone is deserted, no prosecution may commence without his/her complaint.

   Marriage gives right to inheritance. One spouse can inherit from the other. Marriage further gives rise to property rights depending on the choice at marriage. Joined or separate property.

                                             DEATH

      The death of a person signifies that he is no more alive and this is legally proven following the issuance of a death certificate. A death certificate on the other hand can only be issued on the strength of a doctor’s attestation, or a declaratory judgment. The death certificate extinguishes the status of the person showing that he no longer alive.

      Article 78 (NEW) of the Law is to the effect that deaths must be declared to the civil status registrar of the place of its occurrence, burial, residence or both of the deceased within 90 days by the family head, a relative of the deceased or any other person having known for certain that the person so described is deceased. In case of death in a medical institution or penitentiary, the head of the institution must make a declaration within 90 days following the death.

What is the content of a death certificate? A death certificate shall contain the following:

1)      The name of the main or secondary civil status centre failing which, the main centre to which it is attached.

1)      The name, surname, date and place of birth, sex, matrimonial status, profession and residence of the deceased.

2)      Date and place of birth.

3)      Name, surname of the father and mother of the deceased.

4)      The name, surname, profession and residence, relationship and domicile of the declarant.

5)       Name, surname, profession and residence of witnesses,

6)      The date the certificate was drawn up.

Where the body of the deceased person is found and cannot be identified, a death certificate shall be drawn up, by the civil status registrar of the place where the body was found on the declaration of the judicial police officer. If the deceased cannot be identified, the death certificate shall give the fullest description possible and refer to the investigation carried out by the police

  A death certificate also puts to an end person’s criminal responsibilities and his/her rights to vote. Unfortunately, there are many dead persons whose rights and benefits are still flowing not as deceased, but as though they were alive simply because their death certificates never got to the right quarters. A proper example is that of the “antelope exercise” carried in the public service some years ago, where so many ghost workers were uncovered. Amongst these groups, were persons who had died years ago but because of the absence of death certificates in their files, they were continuously paid their salaries as though they were alive. In other words, it is only the production of a death certificate that can legally extinguish his right to a salary.

   Another point of note is the fact that a death certificate should only be issued to the right persons. The civil status registrar and the courts should always investigate as to who wants a death certificate to be established for a dead person. There have been some cases where people who have either forged death certificates for their own selfish aims. There is the case of Peter Akwe Massango, who resides in TOMBEL, South West Region, whose salary was automatically stopped because somebody had established a death certificate that indicated that he was deceased and same was included in all legal files, simply to hurt him.

   It is our fervent desire therefore, that in issuing out these certificates, the civil status registrar and the courts alike, should be very diligent and every fact should be properly investigated. It should be known that every act of theirs has far reaching effects and the legal implications are numerous. And, the government should establish an electronic or computerized recording and filing of all these three (deaths, marriage and birth) documents, which could be easily verified by any agency. This will reduce or eradicate any such falsification of these documents and ease up verification of copies presented to any agency by comparing it with the original in a government established registry.

SOME LIMITATIONS/WEAKNESSES OF THE LAW N⁰ 2011/011 OF MAY 6, 2011

      After carefully examining some of the provisions of this Law, it is obvious that there are many limitations, which lawmakers need to review in order to give judges clear guidelines during sentencing and to erase ambiguities of the law at its present state.

   Article 41(2) States that “Recognition and Legitimation, excepting adoptive legitimation, shall be based on blood relationship. Once the relationship has been established, no one may raise objection on the recognition”. The law though, does not explain the process and procedure of establishing a blood relationship. We have seen situations where a man wishes to legitimize a child he presumed to have had with a woman out of wedlock but the woman vehemently refuses to give her consent (or the mother of the child claims that the man seeking for a relief is not the biological father of the child) to blood testing. It is usually the desire of the courts to accommodate the wishes of the man to carry out a DNA Test to confirm that the child is, indeed, his. However, he may be unable to do so because of the cost involved in carrying out the DNA Test. And, because the courts too are not in the position to absolve the cost of the test for him, the man, who is without financial means, may end up losing the child to a mother who is desperate to keep him out of the child’s life. The courts, in this regard, are powerless. The issue here is at whose expense should the test be done if the applicant or petitioner cannot afford the cost? Is it at the expense of the court, state treasury? This is the issue that the Law is silent on that lawmakers need to address. And since the fate of the child is extremely important here, and also because of the desire of the court to unite the child with both parents, the lawmakers must therefore address this lapse in the law so as to enable the courts to interpret and apply the law as it well should. The lawmakers must put the interest of the child above any financial limitations which the suppose father may have.

   The present law makes consent of the mother mandatory but not that of the father. We have experienced situations where a man is refused paternity of a child he had out of wedlock because the mother of the child has refused to give consent due to the fact that he lacks the financial means to play the role of a father to the child. The lawmakers must address the issue because lack of money by the father should not be the singular factor to determine parenting capability; other factors like emotional and social bonding, are also relevant factors binding a child and his father.

   The law is equally silent on the issue of runner-away fathers, who only surface to claim paternity after the woman has suffered to bring up the child alone. My humble opinion is that a runner away father, who only comes to claim paternity after a reasonable period of abandonment minus criminal sanctions as laid down in Section 358 of the Cameroon Penal Code, be ordered by the courts to compensate the woman or guardians (alimony or child support), calculating from the period of birth (of his absence) to the period he shows up to assume his fatherly obligations. However, if the man does not have the financial means to repay the mother of the child during the period of neglect and abandonment, should paternity be refused him of his biological child? We call on the law makers to look for solutions of these difficulties. It will be helpful for lawmakers to research on this issue how other countries have addressed this problem and import the best of solutions if they cannot formulate theirs.

   The law in its article 55 states that, “the state Counsel may for serious reasons demanding immediate action grant a total or partial waiver of the publication of banns. A waiver of publication of banns shall be requested through a reasonable letter of either spouse-to-be, their father, or guardian in case of minors”. Most legal departments have forms which they only fill and hand to Applicants who come to apply orally for a waiver of publication. I propose that the State Counsels should carry out proper investigations and to always order the Applicants to write a reasonable letter explaining why they need a waiver and the urgency of it. A waiver should be an exceptional measure.
  The Law in article 10 (4) is to the effect that secondary civil status centre may be created in certain council areas and civil status registrars and secretaries appointed to head them. The law does not explain the required qualification for one to be eligible. We have come across civil status registrars who do not know how to read and write but they are exercising their functions through a 3^rd party. This causes one to wonder which criteria was considered before the appointment. The Law should specify the criteria and qualification of appointment or should mandate that civil status registrars are well knowledgeable of the law.

   Some of these weaknesses and limitations are worthy of a review by the lawmakers.

                                           REFERENCES

1)       LAW N⁰ 2011/011 OF 6^TH MAY, 2011 TO AMEND AND COMPLETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE N⁰ 81/02 OF 29^TH JUNE 1981 ON THE ORGANISATION OF CIVIL STATUS REGISTRATION AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE STATUS OF PHYSICAL PERSONS,

2)       THE CAMEROON PENAL CODE

3)       DOCUMENT PREPARED BY FIDA AFTER A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CIVIL STATUS REGISTRARS IN BUEA 1998



Cameroon-Nigeria: The Case for a Strategic Economic Partnership

By Eyembe Elango

In 2008, the American investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs identified Nigeria as being one of a dozen emerging economies which have since been dubbed “Next 11” or N11. This designation represents a monumental economic opportunity for Nigeria’s neighbor, Cameroon. Based on vital trade statistics figures (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/cameroon/export-import.html) both France (21%) and Spain (19.4%) have been Cameroon’s largest trading partners in 2008 and 2009 respectively. However, Nigeria has since surpassed France and Spain as Cameroon’s largest trading partner in 2013.

In 2013, Nigeria has since surpassed France as Cameroon's largest trading partner. If Nigeria's GDP surge continues at 7% per year, it will become Africa’s largest economy within a decade, eclipsing South Africa. Put together, both countries represent half of the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa (which constitute 46 countries). (It is important to know that the GDP of Lagos state alone with approximately 18million inhabitants exceeds Kenya’s(country) national GDP)!

And as Nigeria’s population continues to surge, and with the cost of trading markedly reduced as a result of proximity of the two nations, it makes better economic sense for Cameroon to strike better trading agreement with Nigeria than with Spain and France (barring any significant trade accord). Similarly, Nigeria’s economic ascent has immediate implications for Cameroon. Now, look at Nigeria’s critical needs which Cameroon can readily supply:

• Energy security to fuel its economic growth

• Raw materials, especially Steel

• Food Security to meet rising demand

It is important to know that Cameroon has abundant supply of these three critical needs of Africa’s largest nation. This unique economic situation provides a historic opportunity for Nigeria’s eastern neighbor, Cameroon. A country which has the capacity to meet Nigeria’s growing strategic needs as cited above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I
Energy:

Nigeria’s National Energy Master Plan calls for massive investment in power generation, a process which is now ongoing following privatization of assets in the sector. Long-term plans even address the need to import 5,000MW of energy into Calabar from the proposed Grand Inga project in faraway DRC (Congo). Nigeria’s power generation depends heavily on its considerable national gas resource; however, the cost of constructing and operating thermal powered stations are relatively high and importation makes a better short-term economic sense for Nigeria. Cameroon on the other hand, has Africa’s second highest hydro-electricity potential (55GW). South Africa is the largest and it generates much of its electricity from coal-fired power stations. The O&M costs for hydro power are significantly lower than for gas-fired thermal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I

stations which Nigeria will depends on.

Now, Cameroon’s domestic market is too small for that nation to fully develop and utilize its own hydroelectric potential. Imagine if Cameroon proposed to develop its hydro-electricity industry on a scale to supply and meet the demand of energy-thirsty Nigerian market (Nigeria’s domestic demand is running on a 10,000MW deficit). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I

How significant could the Energy Trade Agreement between Nigeria and Cameroon be?

As part of a strategic partnership, Cameroon could offer to supply Nigeria’s energy needs with cheap hydroelectricity (discounted to 80% of market rates, hypothetically) for 30yrs or until Nigeria’s national GDP doubles (to US$800Million) – whichever may happen first. In exchange, Nigeria would supply Cameroon with asphalt or bitumen to the tune of 5% of the discount value for the energy exported.

Assuming a price of US$0.07/Kwh (Instead of $0.0875/KwH), Cameroon would supply 1,100MW into Nigeria annually (worth $532Million in revenue). Since 5% of the discount would be paid for with asphalt, Nigeria would supply Cameroon with US$6.65Million in asphalt or 66,500tons of asphalt (which costs between $73-125ton).


 

For Cameroon, this would mean enough asphalt (bitumen) to upgrade 693Km of roads into new modern highways each year (consuming 962Tons/Km) or 9,500Km of secondary and low-traffic roads (consuming 7Tons/Km).

The Cameroon government currently plans to tar 3000Km of new roads each decade or 300/yr! In this scheme, Nigeria would supply enough bitumen to raise that capability by 131%

Cameroon’s energy exports under this arrangement would initially target the six adjoining border States of the Nigerian federation (Borno, Adamawa,Taraba, Cross-River & Akwa-Ibom States) who’s total population of 22.1M people exceeds Cameroon’s national population (20Million).

Cameroon has 20 Large capacity and 150 Small capacity hydro sites located within 100Km of the Nigerian border (see report). These sites are located in six(6) of Cameroon’s ten(10) administrative regions. If some portion of Nigeria’s energy payments to Cameroon were allocated to local governments, this would virtually make those provinces less dependent on financial support from the central government in Yaoundé.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I
Steel:

As an emerging global economy, Nigeria will need Steel, a commodity which is developed by processing Iron Ore and which Caneroon has a significant amount of reserve.

Cameroon is currently developing half a dozen Iron Ore projects across the country. The largest of it is at Mbalam -on the border with Congo, which has 64.3Million tones of Iron ore reserves at a mine which is expected to remain productive for 50-70years! Two other deposits at Nkout and Mamelles have been

reported to hold 1.42B Tons and 400M Tonnes respectively
In June 2013, Iron Ore traded at $110/ton from its all-time-high of $150/ton on the world market.

Nigeria will need steel, Cameroon has the requisite Iron-ore to produce it!

Food:

Between 2007 to 2010 Nigeria’s food import bill was N98 Trillion or $628 billion i.e. $157Billion/year. Annually, Nigeria spends US$6.3Billion on four commodities alone: Wheat, Rice, Sugar and Fish. With the exception of wheat, all three foods are produced in Cameroon. Regarding the last product, it is no coincidence that Cameroon derives its name from “Camaros” (and remains world-renowned for the bounty of its coastal waters)
Alone, Central-Africa’s bread-basket, in the Mungo-Nkam Agricultural basin in Cameroon currently employs 113,000 farmers in the production of 963,000 Tons of food-stuff annually. They represent 30% of the region’s population and their productivity stands at 8.5Tons/farmer. Access to Nigeria’s food market would require this region to quintuple its output-at the least. Two fertilizer production plants are presently under development in Cameroon, a tractor assembly factory is now operational at the Ebolowa Industrial Complex, the Cameroon government has set-up an SME Bank and a program is afoot to accelerate the development of Agropoles to spur specialization and investment in food production. Nigeria MUST be a market for these initiatives.

Remember too that “80% of Nigeria’s industrial raw materials are imported”

“If trade between these two countries was regularized, Cameroon would be collecting four times more customs duties in a day than it collects from Chad, Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea in a month”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I
To support the processing of Iron ore into steel, Nigeria will also need coal, Limestone, Beauxite, Dolomite, Refractory Clay and Manganese. Cameroon has no shortage of these to trade with Nigeria.

Synthesis:

AES-Sonel in Cameroon currently has a customer base of 780,000 clients, 45% of whom live in the urban centers of Douala and Cameroon. Investments to supply energy to the urban population of Nigeria’s five (5) States bordering Cameroon, would expand AES-Sonel’s customers base by 295%! The investment to extend the power grid into these States would be a windfall for Cameroon’s populations who live along the route of the grid expansion: cheaper electricity.

The sustained growth of Nigeria’s economy would demand rapid expansion of supply capacity from Cameroon is these sectors and their allied industries (transportation, roads infrastructure, aluminum production, warehousing, cold-chain facilities etc.). Small-scale farmers would have to become commercial farmers; they must mechanize their production operations, use fertilizers and significantly expand the acreage under production.

Capturing 40% of the value of Nigeria’s annual food import bill would mean $63Billion a year of foreign exchange for Cameroon, equivalent to 2.5times Cameroon’s GDP in 2011!

~All of which translates to jobs and income security for Cameroon farmers, cheap and abundant food supply for Nigeria’s consumers.

~Presently, every employed person in Cameroon is estimated to be the bread-winner for at least five people whom they support financially.

~In 2012, AES-Sonel directly employed 3,000 Cameroonians and had 1,413MW in installed power generation capacity. Power sector investments geared towards closing Nigeria’s current energy deficit of 10,000MW may require hiring 18,231 new direct employees (not to mention their 91,157 total direct financial dependents!)

Full employment for 4million Cameroonians would mean that the entire country’s population would be assured a comfortable standard of living. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I

Conclusion:

Investments in these three areas would be a win-win for both countries. The benefits of economies of scale for investments will mean lower prices for Cameroons domestic consumers (even if 70%+ or the energy, steel and food were exported into Nigeria).

For any of the three strategic areas, access to the Nigeria market could expand the customer base AND the economic justification for those investments by double-digits for Cameroon. Both countries would reap the rewards of robust trade and almost ensure growth for at least two generations, or more.

***Mr. Eyembe Elango is native born Cameroonian based in Atlanta, USA and a holder of a Bachelor's of Science degree in Industrial Engineering. He runs a consultancy firm, which is based in Atlanta.To solicite his service you can reach him at eyembe@gmail.com ***Check Mr. Elango at the Cameroon Professional Society (CPS) Washington DC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVyAGrc3B5I

May 1: Reflections on Labor Day

Labor Day was an auspicious moment to reflect on the inhuman and dispiriting conditions of Cameroonian workers, enslaved in the shackles of a rudderless political machinery that sacrifices their welfare on the altar of selfish parochial interests.

By Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai*

     May 1 was Labor Day and like their counterparts the world over, Cameroonians who labor, in both the public and private sectors spent the day on parade; in commemoration of their plight. In practical terms, the Cameroonian worker is a living testimony of the disconnect between the ruling elite and the masses. Since the advent of the New Deal government, Cameroonian workers have been in the shackles of a rudderless political machinery, which sacrifices their welfare on the altar of selfish parochial interests. Instead of propagating empty slogans about “greater achievements,” government should focus on tangible transformation through policies and concrete capital investment in the lives of workers.

     The inability of the ruling elite to fashion out sustainable policies for human development has plunged the working masses into abysmal poverty. With the grinding poverty and apathy towards youth employment, the nation has been bedeviled by pervasive insecurity. All this is exacerbated by a systemic corruption that has crippled the country. Spurious claims of growth, unreliable statistics on looming prosperity, mendacious forecast of development, imprudent management of resources, unrealistic and non-feasible white elephant projects and unimaginable corruption have made Paul Biya’s much-hyped transformation to an emerging economy by 2035 a mirage.

     Labor Day was thus an auspicious moment to reflect on the inhuman and dispiriting conditions in which Cameroonian workers operate. Beside the decrepit infrastructure, moribund institutions and harrowing bureaucratic obstacles in the public sector, in many private sector companies, there is a sustained slide into modern slavery as young ladies are sexually exploited, objectified and commoditized because they are desperate for employment. Cameroon ranks 150 out of 187 countries in the 2013 UNDP Human Development Index (HDI), which provides a composite measure of three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and income.

     As Cameroonian laborers observe the yearly ritual of Labor Day, they must reflect on their plight and recommit to the fight for economic security, better life and defence of human dignity. For the good of the hardworking people of this country, labor unions and activists may wish to stress the importance of Labor Day by engaging government on the plight of the people. They should use the sanctity of Labor Day to familiarize Cameroonians with the fact that obnoxious policies favorable only to entrenched interests have made a living hell out of Cameroon for workers.

     Labor Day is also a period to think deeply about the unemployed. In a country where 48 % of the population lives below the poverty line; with youth unemployment at 13%, Cameroon totters on the brink of a precipice if this national crisis is not addressed. Unemployment has scaled alarming levels to compel the declaration of a national emergency. There is certainly an urgent need to emphasize job creation in private and public sectors. As typical of a government caught between confusion and deception, there is no strategic agenda for job creation. This is a sad commentary on the vision or lack thereof on the part of Cameroonian leaders. And to illustrate the visionlessness embedded in our governance, how much of the national budget is for job creation? To successfully tackle unemployment, all government budgets must include specific targets of job creation in each financial year.

     For the vulnerable senior citizens, who have toiled and are expectant of a rewarding life as pensioners, a beleaguered pension system has not only been a failure, a grand theft of the pensions by government officials has been one of the most spectacular tragedies of the nation. The harrowing experiences of pensioners over the collection of their paltry gratuity, as well as alarming stories of fraud perpetrated in the national social insurance fund (CNPS) are testament to a nation fast losing its soul.

     Add all these to unscrupulous expatriates who exploit the nation’s corrupt system to break labor laws and ethical norms. While foreign investors are certainly welcome, it often seems that many expatriates deliberately set out to operate outside laws, regulations and even morality. These companies have appalling labor standards. Wages are extremely low, job security non-existent and the widely-held belief is that foreign companies treat workers shabbily, confident in their ability to operate above the law. This negatively impacts the economy; from low productivity of workers trapped in demoralizing jobs to the millions of francs worth of consumption power the economy loses when workers are underpaid.

     Foreign companies routinely hire their nationals to occupy positions that thousands of unemployed Cameroonians are perfectly qualified to do. Some of the companies don’t even bother at times to obtain the required work permit; their nationals just jump on the plane to start working in Cameroon. A not so discreet discrimination operates in these companies when managerial positions are exclusively allotted to nationals from their home countries who are promoted over and above better qualified and more experienced Cameroonians. And it must be said that foreign companies who specialize in unethical conduct are doing so only because Cameroonian politicians and bureaucrats would rather profit from that system than conscientiously hold them accountable.

     As condemnable as this is, it reflects the deepening crisis and contradictions of the Cameroonian state, especially given its grossly apparent declining capacity, if not total failure, to measure up to its responsibilities in all ramifications. When the level of state robbery by public officials and the absurdity of their extravagant life style vis-à-vis the squalor of the majority are considered, the despondency of workers encompasses criminality and soullessness. This should tug at the heart-strings of members of the occupation brigade otherwise called leaders. In Nigeria and Ghana, Labor Day celebrations were presided at, by President Goodluck Jonathan and John Mahama respectively - a powerful symbol of solidarity that the Commander-in-Chief is also the “Worker-in-Chief” doing the job given him by the people; who elected (hired) him. That Biya has never presided over Labor Day celebrations in over 30 years in office, is a mark of the contempt with which the President holds the Cameroonian worker!

     It is for this and other reasons, that Labor Day should neither be a day for parades with no message of social relevance, nor one day in the year when government officials, oblivious of the plight of the masses, sardonically claim solidarity with workers. To address workers’ plight, government must go back to basics: provide a conducive environment for citizens to expend their energy, time and skills through work for their own self-actualization and optimal development of society. The need for the President to show leadership in providing the enabling environment necessary for integral development of society is more than just an urgent national imperative.

*Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai is a public intellectual and graduate of Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government where he was Managing Editor of the Harvard Journal of African-American Public Policy. A former Research Analyst for Central Africa with Freedom House, he is a consultant and lives in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Talk back at ekinneh@yahoo.com.

Who Owns Kumba Chieftaincy Stool?

This information "unveiled" the Muketes as the "indisputable owners of the Bafaw paramount chieftaincy stool". Any lingering doubts that this was so was dispelled by "a press statement" issued "a few years ago" by the "Kumba kingmakers" comprising "the ten founding Bafaw families" who presumably also formed the Kumba Traditional Council. Speaking for them, the chairman of the Council Kwo Eseme declared that the Mukete dynasty is the "sole and legitimate entity of the institution”. He added: "Kumba has no chieftaincy dispute. H.R.H. Nfor (Nfon) V.E. Mukete is the sole ruler of the Bafaws and going by Bafaw tradition his dynasty continues". This claim is further bolstered by Ekale John Mpenye, the "representative of the family head of Baskibi (Bashibi) the founding family of Kumba". He Reiterates: "the legitimate Kumba Chieftaincy stool lies with the Muketes". However indirectly, therefore, both Kwo Eseme and Mpenye ultimately appeal to tradition.

                                                  By Prof. Lovett Z. Elango*

     Tamfu Harrison Bawe begins his article, "Colonial archives unveil rightful owners of Bafaw paramount chieftaincy stool (Guardian Post Monday 7 - 13 December 2009 p. 5) with the statement that the "decades-old" controversy "about the rightful owners of the Bafaw paramount chieftaincy stool" has been "put to rest once and forever, thanks to a colonial report put together by the credible National Achieve of the University of Ibandan..."

     The triumphant finality of this statement is no doubt intended to end all discussion about the chieftaincy of Kumba that divides the Bafo people even today. Bawe's statement is based on information recorded in the Bafo Assessment Report 1923-1924, a colonial document written by R.W.M. Dundas, the District Officer (D.O.) of Kumba, following investigations conducted in all Bafo villages. Despite Bawe's conclusion, however, his piece raises more questions than it answers.

     The report, we are told, "was not just simply written"; in other words, it was the result of systematic investigations. It was "credible" and "authentic" precisely because it was based on information gathered by Dundas and his African staff with the "active collaboration" of prominent Bafo village notables. This information "unveiled" the Muketes as the "indisputable owners of the Bafaw paramount chieftaincy stool". Any lingering doubts that this was so was dispelled by "a press statement" issued "a few years ago" by the "Kumba kingmakers" comprising "the ten founding Bafaw families" who presumably also formed the Kumba Traditional Council. Speaking for them, the chairman of the Council Kwo Eseme declared that the Mukete dynasty is the "sole and legitimate entity of the institution”. He added: "Kumba has no chieftaincy dispute. H.R.H. Nfor (Nfon) V.E. Mukete is the sole ruler of the Bafaws and going by Bafaw tradition his dynasty continues". This claim is further bolstered by Ekale John Mpenye, the "representative of the family head of Baskibi (Bashibi) the founding family of Kumba". He Reiterates: "the legitimate Kumba Chieftaincy stool lies with the Muketes". However indirectly, therefore, both Kwo Eseme and Mpenye ultimately appeal to tradition. They both seem to believe that to make their case credible all that is needed is to invent fictitious "kingmakers" and make passionate declarations which sound like oaths of fealty.

     Still, their statements are impressive testimonials which would normally be incontestable but which, in the present context, cannot be unchallenged because they seem to be mere afterthought leading one to ask why, for example, they do not mention Ebakudibo even though Dundas himself used Ebakudibo's name and testimony to discredit Mulango in order to secure his removal and ensure Mukete's appointment to replace him. Is it because they recognize the break in the continuity of the chieftaincy represented by Ebakudibo but do not grasp its implications for the institution created by administrative fiat by British colonial authorities? Is it because it is too embarrassing a detail to be mentioned because it does not corroborate their claims of traditional legitimacy?

     Thus, as impressive as the testimonials may seem at first glance, they cannot be a substitute for answers to these hard questions, and the failure or refusal to confront and answer them does not inspire confidence. The testimonials are therefore rather misplaced and unconvincing, as will become clear subsequently.

     Suffice it to say here, however, that both Kwo Eseme and Mpenye know or should know, since they appeal variously to tradition, that the institution of paramount chief is alien to Bafo experience. Bafo society is decentralization in the sense that each village is autonomous and has its own chief and government. The paramount chieftaincy of Bafo was invented and imposed on them by British colonial authorities for their own convenience and to achieve imperial goals. The first paramount chief so-called was Mulango and he nominally ruled not only the Bafo but also their non-Bafo neighbours like the Barombi, Ekumbe and the reluctant Balung. Dundas himself acknowledged that traditionally the Bafo did not have a single paramount ruler. The only institution that united them was the Difon or Lifon society. This explains why he was "surprised" when Abel Mukete's appointment in 1929 was "welcomed with joy in each village". It must have been a pleasant surprise because it suited the British Policy of "reforming" Bafo society. He attributed this to Mukete's "sense of direction" which proved "his determination to lead the Bafaw tribe positively..." he was particularly pleased to discover from his investigations that because his father was "the last son of the last Akwodifon or Difon priest of the Bajorikwe (Bajuki) family", Mukete had "some" hereditary claim to the position to which Government has appointed him.

     The latter statement is clearly misleading: being a member or even a priest of Difon did not necessarily confer the right to chieftaincy and one is led to ask whether Akwodifon was also chief of his own village, not to mention the chief of Kumba, the position to which the Government has now appointed his grandson Abel Mukete. Moreover, Dundas also points out that the appointment was made "owing to the strong representations by the late Senior Resident, Mr. Arnett". These strong representations were no doubt influenced by the reports and recommendations of Dundas and other administrators of Kumba who portrayed Mukete as "progressive" and compared him favourably with the "savvy" but "corrupt" Mulango.

     In any case, the creation of the paramount chieftaincy was an innovation by which the British sought to reorganise Bafo society and British authorities were aware that the success of the innovation depended ultimately on their support of men like Abel Mukete and not on the traditional legitimacy of the appointees. In other words, these men, having been appointed by Government, served first and foremost at the pleasure of the government and only in the second place at the pleasure of their people.

     It is not irrelevant to point out in this connection that Mulango has been appointed District Head partly, if not largely, as a reward for his service in gathering intelligence for the British when they entered Buea during the Anglo-French campaign in Cameroon in the First World War. On the other hand, Mukete's appointment was due to his "progressiveness" and to his Difon ancestry however remote it may have been. Such appointments reveal the role which non-traditional criteria were beginning to play in the European choice of the men who became the indigenous agents of colonial rule. They also show that in any conflict between the competing claims of imperial policy and indigenous rights and interests, the latter could be swept aside presumably to promote and achieve "good government" and, no doubt, the superior interests of "civilisation" .

     In the case of Mukete, Dundas gave the impression that the appointment was universally welcomed. But he was being disingenuous. In fact, opposition to the appointment and to Mukete's rule began almost immediately. It was sustained and reflected in the petitions which some Bafo notables wrote to the D.O. Kumba against him. So frequent did these petitions become that Mukete himself was forced to react. Things came to a boil in 1936, roughly seven years after his accession, when he wrote to the D.O. Kumba, A.G. Williams, reminding him that "between 1927-1936" he, Williams, had received "something approaching half a dozen petitions from my people disclaiming me as the rightful man to be the chief of Kumba". He continued: "if intruders rise now to say that I am not the rightful man there may be something sensible about their claims. In any case, he wanted the government to do one of two things to resolve the matter. In his own words, "either these scandalous men are satisfied or they must be seriously reprimanded so that tranquility may reign".

     But the "scandalous men" could not be easily appeased. For one thing, they were allegedly being incited by the "savvy" and aggrieved Mulango who had just been permitted to return to Kumba from Buea where he had been "deported" for disciplinary reasons. More important, however, the main cause of their grievance - the crux of their petition - was not addressed. They wanted to know "where did Abel Mukete bring this chief position? When he is not the son of Mediki of the son of Ebaku Dibo, and he is not in our family..." Essentially, they were questioning the legitimacy of Mukete's position in tradition and so long as that question was not answered, the petitioners who were allegedly fomenting the unrest in the town could not be appeased and tranquility could not "reign". If anyone could be faulted for this state of affairs, it was the government which did not and could not address the fundamental issue raised by the petitioners because it had committed itself to a policy of so-called reform which was not easy to reconcile with the demands of people who, from the British point of view, seemed like conservative, backward-looking traditionalists. Rather, the government simply ignored the niceties of tradition and rode roughshod over their concerns.

     Not surprisingly, after reviewing the petition, the D.O. forwarded it to the Resident, Buea, with the recommendation that the leading petitioners, all Bafo notables of Bapeban lineage, be exiled. When the Resident referred the matter of the Chief Commissioner for Southern Provinces, Enugu, the chief commissioner’s response, contained in a lengthy minute dated 7 January 1937 and transmitted by the secretary for the southern provinces, was blunt.

     It was further proof that the position of paramount chief was indeed a government fabrication and that British Authorities were aware of it. "The appointment of Abel Mukete as District Head of the Bafaws", the commissioner wrote "was as Melango's". He added that Mukete had retained his position when others have fallen because he used his position wisely. As long as he continued to so, the commissioner emphasised, "he will receive the support of Government" The commissioner then concluded: "I appreciate Mukete's difficulties, which are by no means peculiar to him, and if he is unable to shoulder his responsibilities he should resign"

     The commissioner’s minute warrants some extended comment. To begin with, it recognized the "artificiality" of the District Headship or paramount chieftaincy because not only was it rooted in tradition; it also owed its existence and survival to government support alone.

     There was no reference to tradition or the traditional chieftaincy held by Ebakudibo before Mulango and after him, Mukete. This was largely due to the coalition of the two institutions, one traditional, the other colonial, which began with Mulango's appointment and continued with Mukete. The conflation was worse compounded by the facts that the terms District Head and Paramount Chief were made virtually synonymous and the District Head of Kumba and all Bafaw was at least also nominal ruler of the Barombi, Ekumbe and the reluctant Balung-an unprecedented situation. It created a new institution without necessarily abolishing the old one. Indeed, the two became so entangled that it is difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate the one from the other at first glance.

     Only those therefore who have some knowledge of the historical realities and traditional values involved can infer from any statement about the Bafo chieftaincy, which one of the institutions is being referred to. The resulting confusion, then now, is at the heart of the present controversy. Finally, the Commissioner’s comments make it clear that other appointees like Mukete, presumably also "artificial" chiefs like him, had similar problems. There were several examples in Kumba, the Cameroons and elsewhere to confirm this and they showed how widespread was the tampering with and manipulation of the institution of chieftaincy by colonial authorities.

     The problem with such manipulations was that some of the appointed chiefs, assured government support, exploited or tried to exploit it to advance personal agendas. It would certainly have pleased Mukete if government exiled the petitioners and he would just as certainly not have hesitated to do it himself if he had the power.

     However, to limit such potential abuse of power, these appointed chiefs had to be held with a tight leash, which is why the Commissioner rejected the recommendation by the D.O, Kumba and the Resident, Buea to exile Mukete's detractors. It is not entirely unlikely that Mukete himself might have broached this solution or at least hinted at it in discussions with the D.O. If so, it reminds one of the proverbial tails attempting to wag the dog

     Be it as it may, all of these points to one thing: Bawe may in fact be right in his claim that Mukete's are the "indisputable owners of the Bafaw paramountcy stool" but this is so only if he is referring to the "stool" fabricated and imposed by the British colonial authorities and to which they appointed Mukete in 1929 after only the most perfunctory "consultation" of the people. But if he and others are referring to the traditional stool, the one inherited by Ebakudibo from Midiki, that is another matter entirely.

     Considering the latter, despite Bawe's pontification, there are many questions to be asked, but only six of them are immediately relevant. But before doing so, it is necessary to emphasize two important factors. First, Bafo are a patrilineal people" they inherit their status, rights and obligations fro, their fathers. Second, the founder and first chief of Kumba was Midiki mi Wukeng or Midiki I of Bashibi sub-lineage of Bapeban lineage.

     According to one version of the Bafo oral Tradition, Midiki I was succeeded as chief by Midiki II and Midiki III, followed by Wbakudibo, Nguti Malong and Ndinkung. It should be noted, however, that Ebakudibo, Wukussa and Ndikung were of the Ban ba- Mbai sub-Lineage of Bapeban, and that Nguti Malong was of the Enong sub-lineage of Bapeban. Thus, whatever may have been the succession between Midiki, Ebakudibo and Nguti Malong that is between Bashibi, Ban ba-Mbai and Enong, the ultimate factor which determined the right of each of these men to the chieftaincy was their kinship ties? They were all Bapeban.

     This brings us to the first six questions that need to be addressed: Aside from being Ebakudibo's son- in law, was Abel Mukete related to any of the persons mentioned above? How? This is important because even Mulango, despite this disputed ancestry was, if nothing else, a "son" of Ebakudibo by assimilation and the last tenuous link with the chieftaincy which originated with Midiki I. Is this perhaps why Dundas seemed so anxious to discredit him? We can only speculate.

     Second, how, when, and why did the chieftaincy which originated with Midiki and the Bishibi sub- lineage of the Bapeban lineage change hands to Ebakudibo and the Ban ba-Mbai sub-lineage of Bapeban? Third, why if anything, were the understandings that preceded or guaranteed the legitimacy of the transfer? Fourth, what if anything, were the rituals of kingship that formalized the transfer? Fifth, why is Ebakudibo mentioned by Dundas only in connection with the thinly-disguised effort to prove that Mulango was not his son and why does he, Dundas, identify Ebakudibo only as an "influential and wealthy man" and not as a chief? Six, was this a mere oversight or was it a deliberate attempt to denigrate the tradition he represented so that Abel Nkembone Mukete, "the great cocoa farmer" and "progressive" , should appear a more desirable and compelling candidate for the paramount chieftaincy?

     These questions, especially the last four, must be confronted even though they may lead to awkward and inconvenient truths. It seems safe to say that the transfer was not a private transaction between Midiki and Ebakudibo. This would tend to suggest that the chieftaincy was a trivial and inconsequential institution indeed. But it was not. It was a state of affairs of the utmost significance, moreover, as any student of African History knows, kinship is the organizing principle of African Society and the Bafo are no exception to this rule. Kinship as indicated earlier, determines the status, rights and obligations of all citizens, including chiefs. It would have been unusual indeed if it did not pay play a role in the transfer of the chieftaincy from Midiki to Ebakudibo, the maternal grandfather of Nfon Mukete. Furthermore, as it is widely known African Kingship, however humble its origins and territorial jurisdiction, is always sanctioned by elaborate ritual based in tradition. The mere fact that it has been thought necessary to publicly enlist the Bashibi sub-lineage and the Kumba "Kingmakers" in support of Mukete dynastic claims more than suggests the tradition, however diminished or distorted it may be, is still too potent a factor to be entirely ignored. Nor can its keepers. Bawe is brave indeed. He rushes in heedlessly, where wise men tread softly. But one gets the impression that he is a hired pen engaged in the cynical manipulation of public opinion to promote a thinly-veiled agenda. If so, he does a great disservice to his employers who, one suspects, deliberately put him up to a task for which his lack of knowledge and slender skills do not suit him. This disservice extends to the Bafo, a small, gifted and generous but embattled people who have long been traduced, in part because of their own glaring mistakes. But however grave their mistakes may be, they deserve better and should not also have their history travestied by the dabbling of uninformed amateurs and dilettante. This, Shakespeare would surely have agreed is "the unkindest cut of all".

     Bawe's sweeping declarations about the Kumba chieftaincy stem from a fundamental error: his uncritical reliance on the Dundas report which he mistakes for history. But history cannot be based on the paltry and patchy evidence of a single document used uncritically. As any competent undergraduate will confirm, the report is not history. Nor was it intended to be. At best it provides some useful data for the writing of history. Otherwise, like all the intelligence, Assessment and Reassessment Reports, it was intended for the use of hard-pressed colonial officials, especially administrators which knew nothing about Cameroon people, cultures and societies. As is well known, these administrators came to Africa with a heavy freight of distortions that needed correction.

     Moreover, the conditions they found were still unsettled due to the Anglo- French campaign in the country during World War I.

     The Dundas report was supposed to help correct this ignorance and the resulting distortions. Particularly, it was supposed to provide them information on which to "asses" the tax to be imposed on the people. To use it as history and try to make it serve a purpose for which it was not intended is to wholly misunderstand its value. With regard to the chieftaincy of Kumba, Bawe's reliance upon the report does not clarify the issues, it obscures or ignores them.

     And whatever may be the merits of the claims which he and others base on the report, it should be emphasised that there are counterclaims made elsewhere, including unwritten sources, they should be cross checked. Only then can we come closer to the truth. Until then, the last word has not been said about this matter and far from being over, the discussions is only just beginning. For the controversy, now eighty-one years old, is bound to grow more intense if only because since independence the Cameroon government has adopted a distinctly more interventionist policy that has not only politicized the institution of chieftaincy but rather eroded its traditional basis. On the other hand, because the incumbent of the house of Mukete is nearing the end of his rule, this adds a new dimension to the intensity-and urgency- of the discussion. Ultimately, perhaps inevitably, this will almost certainly become pretexts for even government intervention in the interest of national policy as British authorities did in 1929 to strengthen colonial rule. In the colonial situation the chieftaincy was the hostage of the government policy. It seems destined to be so now and in the foreseeable future, Dundas or no Dundas.

*Lovett Z. Elango is Retired Professor of History, Emeritus.