IS SWELA STILL ALIVE—AND WHOSE INTERESTS DOES IT NOW SERVE?

IS SWELA STILL ALIVE—AND WHOSE INTERESTS DOES IT NOW SERVE?

After remaining virtually comatose for a remarkably long time, SWELA has suddenly reappeared through someone presented as its Assistant Secretary-General—apparently to defend local administrative authorities and a traditional ruler facing serious public questions over the alleged grabbing and unlawful transfer of CDC leasehold land.

This intervention is deeply disappointing. An organisation claiming to represent the people of the South-West should stand firmly for transparency, indigenous land rights and accountability—not become a shield for officials or individuals whose conduct has been called into question.

For many years, SWELA has been perceived not as a genuinely independent movement of the people, but as an elitist political instrument encouraged by the Yaoundé establishment to deepen mistrust between the North-West and South-West Regions. Its interventions have too often appeared calculated to divide Anglophones, weaken their collective bargaining power and distract them from their shared political, constitutional and economic interests.

Whatever our regional differences, we must understand that division only strengthens those who exploit our land, silence our communities and deny our people justice.

We shall not allow manufactured confusion, elite manipulation or regional rivalry to derail the lawful defence of our common interests. Whether the issue concerns indigenous land rights, community survival, constitutional protections, economic justice or the future of our nation, we must refuse to be divided.

The people of the North-West and South-West share too much history, suffering and hope to permit political opportunists to turn them against one another. We can disagree without becoming enemies, and we can defend our respective communities without weakening our common cause.

SWELA must therefore clarify its legal status, current leadership, mandate, membership and the interests it represents. It must also explain why it has suddenly awakened—not to defend dispossessed communities, but seemingly to defend those accused of presiding over questionable land transactions.

Our determination is clear: we shall overcome confusion and division. We shall pursue justice peacefully, lawfully and collectively. No organisation, administrative authority, traditional ruler or political interest will be permitted to place itself above accountability.

Our ancestral lands are not instruments of political patronage. Our communities are not pawns. Take this statement to the bank; "-Our unity is not negotiable."

Dr. David Makongo