THE NEW-OLD TRAP: DAVID MAKONGO AND THE POLITICS OF “NORTH WEST–SOUTH WEST

THE NEW-OLD TRAP: DAVID MAKONGO AND THE POLITICS OF “NORTH WEST–SOUTH WEST”*

By Timothy Enongene,

Associate Editor-in-Chief, 

Independentist News

*26 August 2026*

There comes a point in every struggle when people must stop asking themselves how to make the oppressor comfortable and begin asking how to make themselves free. That is the point at which the restoration struggle stands today. We did not mobilise because we wanted a better seat in Yaoundé. We did not organise because we wanted an Anglophone Vice-President. We did not sacrifice because we wanted another “special status,” another decentralisation formula or another constitutional arrangement designed in La République du Cameroun (LRC). We rose because the fundamental political relationship had broken down, and our people declared that they wanted to restore their country.

That is why David Makongo's new campaign deserves more than polite applause. His call for “Anglophone unity” sounds attractive until one examines the political destination toward which his argument appears to be leading. Unity is good. Cooperation is good. Reconciliation among our people is good. Economic solidarity is good. But unity for what? Unity to prepare Ambazonia to exercise its sovereignty or unity to return us to the very La République du Cameroun political framework from which the restoration struggle emerged?

That is the question Mr Makongo has not adequately answered.

We have heard this story before. It comes wrapped in beautiful words: unity, reconciliation, dialogue, development, cooperation, common interests. But beneath the language is an old political architecture—“North West and South West.” Suddenly, after years of a restoration struggle, we are being invited to believe that the central problem is that these two administrative creations have not sufficiently reconciled with each other.

No.

That is not why we are fighting.

We did not pick up arms because a farmer in Manyu had a disagreement with a teacher in Mezam. We did not resist because the people of Fako had declared war on the people of Bui. We did not endure years of destruction because Midland and Atlantic were fighting over political supremacy. We did not lose a generation because “North West” and “South West” needed a reconciliation conference.

The conflict is political.

It is about authority.

It is about sovereignty.

It is about who has the right to determine the political future of the territory we call Ambazonia.

And that is precisely why the “North West–South West problem” narrative is so dangerous when it is presented as the central explanation for our crisis. It takes a struggle over political sovereignty and repackages it as an internal disagreement between two administrative regions.

Who benefits from that reframing?

Certainly not the restoration project.

For decades, Yaoundé has administered our territory through structures, appointments and political arrangements created by the Cameroonian state. Individuals from different communities have participated in that system, sometimes willingly and sometimes under pressure. Some have benefited from it. Some have opposed it. Some have used their positions against their own people. But that does not magically transform the policies of Yaoundé into a war between communities.

When Patrick Ekema was used to obstruct Cardinal Christian Tumi's efforts toward an Anglophone General Conference, was he acting because the people of the South West had democratically mandated him to fight the people of the North West?

Of course not.

He was acting within a political environment shaped by Yaoundé.

And if a person from one community executes a policy against another community, we should hold the individual accountable. But we should not make an entire county, region or people collectively responsible for the policy of a state.

That distinction is fundamental.

Our people have been politically manipulated before. We should not allow the same political vocabulary to manipulate us again.

The former British Southern Cameroons did not suddenly become two antagonistic nations because Yaoundé drew administrative boundaries and subsequently managed political competition within them. Our communities have always had their differences, just as every society does. But differences between communities are not the same thing as a constitutional conflict between two nations.

And if there are genuine internal divisions among Ambazonians today, let us address them honestly.

But let us not confuse the existence of disagreements with the existence of a “North West versus South West” national conflict.

There is no mandate from the Ambazonian people for us to abandon the restoration objective and replace it with a reconciliation conference between two Cameroonian administrative regions.

This is where Mr Makongo's political evolution becomes relevant.

At the beginning of the restoration struggle, David Makongo presented himself as a leader and international mediator. He made public political interventions, positioned himself as an alternative voice and at one point spoke of leadership arrangements involving himself and Hon. Joseph Wirba. He also made strong pronouncements about who did or did not enjoy the confidence of the people.

Today, the message sounds markedly different.

Now we are told that our primary task is to put the “North West and South West” together.

We are told to repair the house.

Fine.

But which house?

That is the question.

If he means the house of Ambazonia, then let him say so plainly.

If he means rebuilding the institutions of a restored Ambazonia, strengthening our economy, reconciling communities, establishing the rule of law and preparing our country to exercise effective authority over its territory, then there is no disagreement.

But if “repairing the house” means returning to the constitutional house of La République du Cameroun and negotiating for a federation, special status, Vice-Presidency or another arrangement inside LRC, then let us call the project by its proper name.

That is not restoration.

That is a different political project.

And everyone has the right to choose a different political project.

But nobody should dress that alternative project in the language of restoration and expect those still fighting for Ambazonian sovereignty to remain silent.

The restoration struggle has already crossed a political Rubicon.

Our objective is not to persuade Yaoundé to like us.

Our objective is not to make Yaoundé comfortable.

Our objective is not to find the perfect formula for remaining inside LRC.

Our objective is recognition and the effective exercise of sovereignty by Ambazonia.

If La République du Cameroun eventually accepts a genuine third-party-mediated negotiation, then the character of that negotiation must be understood clearly.

It will not be a family meeting between “North West” and “South West.”

It will not be a conference to reconcile two Cameroonian administrative regions.

It will not be a debate between special-status advocates and federalists.

It will not be an opportunity for LRC politicians to select which Ambazonian politician they find most convenient.

It will be a political negotiation between competing authorities over the future of a territory.

On our side stands the leadership of the restoration movement, with Dr Samuel Sako as our leader. On the other side stands the government of La République du Cameroun, headed by its president.

That is the level at which the issue must eventually be confronted.

And this is why the political ambitions of Maurice Kamto, Issa Tchiroma and other LRC politicians must not be confused with the Ambazonian question. They may disagree with Paul Biya. They may want to replace him. They may offer different policies for LRC. But if their political destination remains one Cameroon, then their project remains different from ours.

Replacing the occupant of the Unity Palace does not automatically restore Ambazonia.

Replacing CPDM rule with another LRC government does not automatically restore Ambazonia.

Holding an election in Yaoundé does not automatically restore Ambazonia.

One Cameroon with a new president is still One Cameroon.

And that is precisely why the Facebook campaign to revive “North West and South West” as the central political question must be treated with caution.

It is a distraction from the actual question.

The United States did not defeat Britain by first organising a permanent conference to reconcile every colony with every other colony before deciding whether independence was worth pursuing. The American revolutionaries had disagreements, rivalries and competing visions, but the central political question remained independence from British rule. Unity became meaningful because it served a political objective.

The lesson is not that history repeats itself exactly. It is that unity is meaningful only when we understand what purpose it serves.

Ambazonian unity should serve Ambazonian freedom.

Our three zones—Midland, Savannah and Atlantic—must not become competing political identities. Our counties must not become miniature states fighting one another. Our villages must not become political prisons. Our tribes must not determine citizenship.

The purpose of our national restructuring should be exactly the opposite: to create a country in which someone from Bachuo Ntai can live freely in Mezam, someone from Essimbi can establish a business in Fako, someone from Ikiliwindi can study in Bui, and every one of them knows that the law protects them as citizens of the same country.

That is unity.

But unity does not require us to pretend that our political objective has changed.

We can reconcile.

We can forgive.

We can rebuild.

We can discuss tribalism.

We can address economic inequality.

We can strengthen institutions.

We can reform leadership.

We can criticise Dr Samuel Sako.

We can criticise Ayuk Tabe.

We can criticise Makongo.

We can criticise every Ambazonian politician, activist, intellectual or traditional authority.

That is what a future free society should permit.

But none of these internal debates should be allowed to erase the central question:

Who governs Ambazonia?

That is the question.

And the destination remains Buea.

It may take longer than we want. It may be more difficult than we imagined. It may require political, diplomatic, economic and institutional work far beyond what many expected when the struggle began.

But the destination does not become Yaoundé simply because the journey has become difficult.

If Mr Makongo has concluded that his political future lies within La République du Cameroun, that is his right. If he wants to advocate One Cameroon, he is free to do so. If he believes federalism is preferable, he is free to make that argument.

But then let him make it honestly.

There is enough political space in LRC for those who want One Cameroon. There is enough land between the Centre and Adamawa regions for those who want to construct new versions of “North West” and “South West” within that political framework.

But do not bring that project back into Ambazonia and call it restoration.

We did not sacrifice lives, homes, education and livelihoods simply to return to the starting point under a new political vocabulary.

We did not endure ten years of conflict so that somebody could now tell us that the real problem was that “North West” and “South West” had failed to hold enough meetings.

No.

Our people are not confused about why they rose.

They may disagree about tactics.

They may disagree about leadership.

They may disagree about timing.

They may disagree about institutions.

But the fundamental question remains alive:

Ambazonia must be free.

So let us unite.

But let us unite as Ambazonians.

Let us organise.

But let us organise for sovereignty.

Let us negotiate.

But let us negotiate as a people with a political claim—not as two administrative regions seeking permission from Yaoundé to coexist.

Let us reconcile.

But let us reconcile our own people so that we can build our country—not reconcile ourselves to political subordination.

And let us be very clear about one thing:

We are no longer fighting to please Yaoundé.

We are no longer waiting for Yaoundé to decide what degree of dignity it is prepared to grant us.

We are no longer asking which constitutional arrangement will make our existence tolerable within LRC.

We are demanding recognition of a political reality that the restoration movement has already proclaimed.

That is the difference between seeking accommodation and seeking freedom.

David Makongo is entitled to change his political position.

He is entitled to campaign.

He is entitled to write.

He is entitled to persuade.

But he is not entitled to redefine the objective of a struggle simply because his own political journey has taken a different direction.

The people will decide.

And when they decide, it should be on the basis of a clear question—not a deliberately blurred one.

Not:

“How do we reconcile North West and South West?”

But:

“What political future do the people of Ambazonia choose for themselves?”

That is the question that matters.

And until that question is answered by the people themselves, every attempt to reduce the restoration struggle to an internal “North West–South West” disagreement should be recognised for what it is:

the new packaging of an old political narrative.

We have a country to build.

We have sovereignty to exercise.

We have a people to protect.

And we have a destination.

Buea.

Timothy Enongene

Associate Editor-in-Chief

Independentist News