ANGLOPHONE UNITY IS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR—NOR A SURRENDER TO YAOUNDÉ
A brief response to Timothy Enongene
Mr. Enongene’s article rests on a fundamental misrepresentation: that calling for unity between the people of the North West and South West somehow abandons their shared history or obstructs their right to determine their political future.
It does neither.
My call is not for unity around Yaoundé, independence, federation, special status or any predetermined political destination. It is a call for our people to rebuild their shattered social, economic and institutional foundations so that they can freely, peacefully and credibly decide their future.
The author demands that “the people must decide.” I agree completely. But that principle must apply to every political project—including Ambazonia. No movement, armed group, Facebook government or self-appointed leadership has the right to rename territories, create thirteen counties and sixty-one local government areas, or proclaim a federal republic without the freely expressed consent of the people concerned.
You cannot condemn imposed political arrangements from Yaoundé while imposing another political arrangement from abroad.
The greatest weakness in this criticism is its attempt to treat internal accountability as victim-blaming. Recognising that Yaoundé has exploited our divisions does not mean denying the responsibility of those among us who accepted, encouraged or benefited from that manipulation. A system can design division, but individuals still choose whether to become its instruments. Honest unity requires us to confront both the external machinery and the internal collaborators who helped it operate.
Nor can every criticism of the restoration movement be dismissed as hostility to self-determination. After years of killings, kidnappings, school closures, extortion, displacement and economic destruction, many people have withdrawn their support from methods that have inflicted unbearable suffering upon the very population they claimed to liberate. Serious allegations have also been made that some supposed leaders cooperate with, benefit from or maintain connections to the same institutions they publicly claim to oppose. These issues cannot be buried beneath patriotic slogans.
To question such conduct is not betrayal. It is accountability.
The distinction is therefore clear:
My unity initiative seeks to organise and empower the people. Mr. Enongene’s argument seeks first to bind them to a political destination already selected in their name.
Our people need schools, businesses, investment networks, professional institutions, community protection and economic opportunity. They need the freedom to travel, work, speak and participate politically without intimidation—from the state, armed groups or diaspora activists.
The North West and South West are not being invoked to divide our people. They are existing communities whose damaged relationships, institutions and economies must be repaired. Renaming them Midland, Savannah and Atlantic does not automatically heal mistrust, end tribalism or create democratic legitimacy.
Unity must precede any sustainable political settlement because a fragmented, traumatised and economically weakened people cannot negotiate effectively, govern successfully or protect their future—whether they ultimately choose federation, confederation, independence or another constitutional arrangement.
I have evolved because responsible leadership must respond to reality. When a course of action produces prolonged suffering without a credible democratic mandate, reviewing that course is wisdom—not betrayal. What would be irresponsible is demanding that civilians continue paying with their lives merely to preserve the political relevance of leaders living far from the consequences.
My position remains straightforward:
Let the violence end.
Let our communities heal.
Let our institutions be rebuilt.
Let every political option be presented peacefully.
And let the people decide freely—without coercion from Yaoundé, armed factions or self-appointed governments.
Anglophone unity is not the destination. It is the foundation upon which our people can recover their collective power and determine their destination for themselves.
No leader owns the people. No movement owns their future. And no political cause is legitimate if it fears their freely expressed choice.
— Dr. David Makongo
Comments
Post a Comment