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.
By Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai*
