Cameroun Recolonised Southern Cameroons- Agbor Nkongho Epistles To US Congress






Barrister Agbor Nkongho Balla in his exceptional written statement to the United States Congress on June 27th, 2018 did stated categorically and explained to the Congress how both La Republique Du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons gained independence separately. Balla situated the  UN April 21st I961 Independence votes of Southern Cameroons Independence by community of nations including the United States and even went further to informed the US that surprisingly La Republique Du Cameroun voted against the Independence of Southern Cameroons and turned around to lay claims to it. In fact, Balla presented it as a recolonisation project after all the UN charters were violated after the so called ‘joining’ agreement. In this edition, BaretaNews brings to you part of Balla’s written statement. Read on

History of French Cameroon

On 1st January 1960, the attached territory of French Cameroon, also a class B trust territory, achieved independence from France, though with a chronic ongoing anarchy and terrorism there notwithstanding. The French had decided that 1960 was to be the year of independence for its African colonies.
French Cameroun achieved independence under the name and style of La Republique du Cameroun (Present day name of the country) with Mr. Ahmadou Ahidjo as its President. It was admitted to membership of the United Nations on 20 September 1960. The name ‘Republique du Cameroun’ is variously translated into English as ‘Republic of Cameroon’ or sometimes simply as ‘Cameroon’.

Plebiscite Recommended by United Nations

On 13 March 1959 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1350 (XIII) recommending a plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons instead of the granting of independence right away. This was followed by another General Assembly resolution, 1352 (XIV) of 16 October 1959, ordering a plebiscite to be held in the Southern Cameroons “not later than March 1961”. The people of the Southern Cameroons were to pronounce themselves on ‘achieving independence’ by the two dead-end alternatives of ‘joining’ Nigeria or Republic of Cameroon.

Still that same year, some perceptive minds in the Trusteeship Council expressed concerns that after attaining independence on 1 January 1960 Republic of Cameroon could try to annex the Southern Cameroons. The Premier of French Cameroun, Mr. Ahidjo, denied any such intention or the possibility of any such action on the part of independent Republic of Cameroon. At the 849th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN, Mr. Ahidjo took the floor and gave the UN the solemn assurance that Republic of Cameroon is not annexationist. He declared: “We are not annexationists. … If our brothers of the British zone wish to unite with independent Cameroon, we are ready to discuss the matter with them, but we will do so on a footing of equality.” Of course this is the reverse on the field.

The United Nations, on April 21, 1961, voted for the independence of the British Southern Cameroons. According to the United Nations Resolution 1608(XV), the Southern Cameroons had a right to sovereignty. The UN General Assembly session voted an overwhelming 64 votes against 23 and 10 abstentions for independence of the Southern Cameroons to take effect on October, 1961. The United States voted for an independent Southern Cameroons. However, France hoodwinked the British and other state to push for the UN coordinated plebiscite.

Plebiscite Process Set in Motion

On 31 March 1960 the Trusteeship Council adopted Resolution 2013 (XXVI) requesting the UK Government “to take appropriate steps, in consultation with the authorities concerned, to ensure that the people of the Territory are fully informed, before the plebiscite, of the constitutional arrangements that would have to be made, at the appropriate time, for the implementation of the decisions taken at the plebiscite.”

The Secretary of State put forward the following interpretation as consistent with the plebiscite alternative of ‘joining’ Republic of Cameroon: “the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroon Republic would unite in a Federal United Cameroon Republic. The arrangements for the union would be worked out after the plebiscite by a conference consisting of representative delegations of equal status from the Republic and the Southern Cameroons. The United Nations and the United Kingdom would also be associated with this conference.” Both the Southern Cameroons and Republic du Cameroon agreed to this interpretation. The signed and published Agreement between the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon provided that in the event of the plebiscite vote going in favour of “achieving independence by joining” Republic of Cameroon, the following would be the broad terms of the ‘joining’:

1. The Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon would unite to create a Federal State to be called the ‘Federal Republic Cameroon’, outside the British Commonwealth and the French Community;

2. The component states of the Federation would be the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon, legally equal in status;

3. Each federated state would continue to conduct its affairs consistently with its colonially-inherited state-culture, with only a limited number of subject matters conceded to the union government;

4. Nationals of the federated states would enjoy Federal Cameroon nationality;

5. The Federation would have a bicameral Parliament consisting of a Federal Senate and a Federal National Assembly; and

6. Federal laws will only be enacted in such a way that no measures contrary to the interests of one state will be imposed upon it by the majority.

The Agreement also stipulated as follows:
1. Constitutional arrangements would be worked out after the plebiscite by a post-plebiscite conference comprising representative delegations of equal status from the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon, in association with the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations;

2. The post-plebiscite conference would have as its goal the fixing of time limits and conditions for the transfer of sovereignty powers to an organisation representing the future federation;

3. Those entrusted with the affairs of the united Cameroon would put the would-be federal constitution to the people of the Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon to pronounce themselves on it; and

The phrase “to achieve independence by joining Republic of Cameroon” was therefore clearly understood by all concerned (the UN, the UK Government, the Southern Cameroons Government, and the Republic of Cameroon Government) to mean that the Southern Cameroons would attain independence and then form, on the footing of legal equality, a federal union with Republic of Cameroon under an agreed federal constitution as defined in Resolution 1514(XV).

On 11 February 1961 the UN-supervised limited plebiscite took place in the Southern Cameroons. The vote was a plebiscite on political status to enable the people of the Southern Cameroons progress from full measure of self-government to national independence. The vote went in favour of achieving independence ‘by joining’ Republic of Cameroon rather than Nigeria.

Two months after the plebiscite vote, on 21 April 1961, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1608 (XV) to give effect to the intention expressed by the people of the Southern Cameroons at the plebiscite. Republic of Cameroon, through its Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Charles Okala, made a protest against the taking of a vote on the independence of the Southern Cameroons and then voted against Resolution 1608. It speaks volumes that the overwhelming UN vote on the independence of the Southern Cameroons did not go down well with Republic of Cameroon.

In Resolution 1608 (XV) the General Assembly:
1. Endorsed the results of the plebiscite that “the people of the Southern Cameroons decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon”;

2. Considered that “the decision made by them through a democratic process under the supervision of the United Nations should be immediately implemented”;

3. Decided that “the Trusteeship Agreement of 13 December 1946 concerning the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration … be terminated, in accordance with Article 76 b of the Charter of the United Nations … with respect to the Southern Cameroons, on 1 October 1961, upon its joining the Republic of Cameroon”; and

4. Invited “the Administering Authority, the Government of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to initiate urgent discussions with a view to finalizing before 1 October 1961 the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned will be implemented.”
These said ‘agreed and declared policies’ were not and have never been finalized.

By Barrister Agbor Nkongho aka Balla

To be continued



  1. bro_came

    June 28, 2018 at 4:40 PM

    Look at this idiot what independence are you talking about? You were liberated and asked to choose between the Igbo and Cameroon and you choose Cameroon. Once you choose Cameroon, you were then sold to France as a cheap goods.
    You are talking about marginalization, my ass the entire country is marginalized. Look at it well, even the US that you think of educating is laughing at you. NO and SW are far better than other regions in Cameroon. You guys are nothing, but hypocrites.

    • Saa

      June 28, 2018 at 6:18 PM

      Fuck you idiot called ‘bro_cam”. Do you still have any water in your brains? Go study more before coming to expose how stupid you are.

      • Mbeuh

        June 28, 2018 at 7:52 PM

        Mr Saa,

        I am pleading with you to hold back your emotions in the face of absolute ignorance which even the blind can see many miles away. They say it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

        There were and still are two countries that by some error of commission and omission by the powers in 1961 (clearly laid out in Agbor Balla’s write up to the Congress of the USA) were illegally fused as one. It is that illegality of the so called union and the marginalization of West Cameroonians right after October of 1961 that constitutes the root cause of this crisis and which is being fought against.

        Perhaps for educational purposes to those who want to learn how much and how long Southern Cameroonians have endured this slave – master relationship with East Cameroon I’ll post here below Dr. Bernard Fonlon’s letter of concern to Amadou Ahidjo written in 1964.

        (A secret memo by Bernard Fonlon to Ahmadou Ahidjo)

        In 1964, barely three years after the unification of the British Southern
        Cameroons and the French Cameroons and the creation of the Federal
        Republic of Cameroon, cracks began appearing in the edifice. Dr. Bernard
        Fonlon, then Chief scribe of the K.N.D.P. (the ruling party in the former
        Southern Cameroons), wrote a secret letter to President Ahidjo informing him that the KNDP was disillusioned with its marginalization within the federation. This letter, which was made public after Fonlon’s death, was definitely a precursor to many other secret and public letters, memos, books, articles, etc., that would be written about the marginalization of the institutions and people of the former Southern Cameroons within the bilingual Cameroon Republic:


        “We of the K.N.D.P. know the fervour and the determined will that animated the struggle of our people for reunification, and the high hopes that fired this struggle. We have also come to see what this enterprise means to Africa. We are, therefore, firmly determined never to betray unification. We are firmly committed to the federation and we here pledge ourselves solemnly to work for its success. But we know that for it to survive it must live and grow according to definite principles, principles which are not chosen arbitrarily, principles which arise, by themselves, from the very nature of this our national enterprise.

        A traveler on the road stops from time to time to look back and see the ground he has covered; merchants close shops at intervals to take stock; users of machines are bound to service and overhaul them now and again. Thus it is the most natural of things for the people engaged in an enterprise such as this to halt, once in a while, to see how much ground has been covered, to draw up their balance sheet, to service or overhaul, if need be, the machinery of the State.

        There can be hardly any other moment more self-offering, more natural, more opportune for such a thorough reappraisal than this time, when the transitional period of our constitution is drawing to a close and we are bracing ourselves to launch into the more permanent final stage.

        It is therefore categorically imperative for us now to focus the searchlights of an objective, implacable and critical mind on the past three years; it is imperative for us to pass action for that period beneath a powerful microscope, as it were, to see whether we have been building according to the principles inherent in the nature of the enterprise itself.

        But before going into that, I would like to stress and make it abundantly clear, in the name of the Central Working Committee of the K.N.D.P., that our desire to get this done is inspired in no way by bitterness, it is not a challenge; our overriding concern, as we have said, is the success of reunification, the health of our Federation. We are moved to this by our profound love for this country, by our deep; concern for its welfare. There is no place here, therefore, for angry recriminations, not to talk of dishonest motives. This is a family gathering; it is not a court of law. Our one concern shall be to state facts as they are, or at least as we see them.
        But our seeing may be faulty. There may be other facts which have escaped our observation. We lay no claim to a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom. But we do assert, categorically, that our motives are pure and sincere. Therefore, if our conclusions are proved wrong or exaggerated, we will be prompt to abandon or correct them. All we ask is that in this discussion no question whatsoever should be considered taboo.

        As one who wants to rip an abscess open, let us get out the knife and do the job, however delicate the part of the body affected may be. As men intent on a good job of cleaning, let us shake out the carpets; let us probe into every corner. Nothing should be considered too delicate or too sacred to touch.


        This said, let us go back to the question of whether our building thus far has been based on principles demanded by the nature of the work. It is an important question; for success in dealing with things demands that each shall be treated according to this nature. This brings us once again to the principle of the four causes on which each and everything depends for its being.

        First the builders: in this enterprise there are two sets of them, two communities, two political parties divided in background, mentality and methods. If the builders that stand addressed to one and the same task are so different, how can they work in concert, how can they ever begin at all except if they first list down and discuss and agree on the purpose of the building, on the materials to use and on the form the house should take? Unless building is preceded by discussion and agreement, one of two things will happen. Either each party will try to work according to his own ideas and we will have the confusion of Babel re-enacted once again, or the stronger party will usurp the enterprise and reduce the weaker partner to a passive onlooker. When this happens, there can be no other outcome but discontent and frustration.

        In fact, this second thing is what has happened and is happening.

        Since we came together, the K.N.D.P. has hardly done more than stand by and look on. For, talking sincerely, can we name one single policy in any field – economics, education, internal affairs, external affairs – that has been worked out jointly by the two parties? Can we point a finger at one idea that took birth in the K.N.D.P. and was welcomed and implemented by this Government? There is disillusionment; discontent and frustration are sinking and spreading. There is nothing so calculated to wring and crush the human spirit, before a lofty enterprise, as to know what should be done and yet to have to stand by impotent and see the opposite taking place. This desperation has become explosive.

        The K.N.D.P. demands to take a genuine part in the making of this country. Discussion and agreement first on theoretical principles, on doctrine or policy, that is, and then on a definite practical programme based on that policy are absolutely necessary in this coalition, as they are in any other, anywhere, at anytime. They belong to the nature of the thing. Examination shows, as I have stressed above, that there is hardly one single idea contributed by the K.N.D.P. to federal Government policy since we came together. The two parties have never met to define a general policy as a framework for all Government action, or to agree on particular policies in definite fields of activity – economics, money, foreign affairs, defence, education.

        Furthermore, when you share in a Government, you share full responsibility for its actions; you share the credit for its achievements, the blame for its blunders. Thus, it cannot be a matter of indifference, to you how this Government is constituted or what policy it espouses. Any Chief of Government or of state picks his team as he judges best; but thus surely does not exclude consultation with his partners in coalition to hear their views about his choice.

        Indeed, arguing logically from the premises enunciated above, the K.N.D.P claims it as a right, on principle, as a partaker in this coalition, to have say not merely in the choice of the members which it supplies to the Government, but also in that of those put forward by its partner in coalition. The K.N.D.P claims its say, more especially, over what seats should be given to it in the Government in order that it may be able, thereby, to make a fitting and honourable contribution to the building of this nation. There is nothing extraordinary in this demand: whenever there is a coalition Government, negotiation on ministerial portfolios is an absolute prerequisite.

        What then do we want exactly?

        In order to close with proposals practical and precise, I will spell out dearly the claims of the K.N.D.P. We demand:

        1) That discussion, negotiation and agreement should become the rule in this coalition as from this day, in order to ensure for the K.N.D.P a dignified participation in this Government and an effective contribution in the lion, the elaboration and the implementation of all Government policy;

        2) That a general framework policy and particular applications of it in the diverse fields should be defined and adopted jointly by the two parties to give coherence and direction to ail Government action; and that concrete programmes should be drawn up to embody these policies;

        3) That a machinery should be set up at party and Government levels for the efficient and effective carrying out of the above proposals; at the party level a permanent committee should be set up where representative from both sides shall meet regularly to draw up Government policy;

        4) That the constitution should be revised to provide, inter alia, for a Council of Ministers in which Government projects from all ministries shall be fully, freely and frankly debated before they are submitted to the Head of State a nature in other words, we call for the reinstallation of the principle, we respect the nature of things, we would be: that all Government decisions should be taken in council;

        5) That an ad hoc committee should be set up right away to work out the details of these suggestions;

        6) That these proposals should be studied, worked out and put into effect before the final dose of the transitional period, that is , before the forthcoming presidential elections.

        Such then are the proposals of the K.N.D.P; we hope they are clear and precise.

        We shall call upon you, therefore, brothers and co-builders, to hear us with sympathetic understanding. As I have said, again and again, we are not making this appeal in a fault finding spirit. We are making it because of our love for this country, because of our faith in its destiny, because of our concern for this welfare and prestige. We make it because we are mindful of the solemn words of practical wisdom addressed to all builders in the Sermon on the Mount. For, taking heed of that warning, we know for certain that if, in accomplishing the task that history has set for us, we respect inherent, basic laws, if we respect the nature of things, we would be:

        like a wise man
        who built his house
        upon a rock;
        and the rain fell
        and the floods came
        and the winds blew.
        and beat upon that house
        but it did not fall; for
        it was founded upon a rock

        But if we shut ear and eye to fundamental principles, if we refuse to do things as they should be done, if we despise and reject the elementary canons without which no partners in coalition can work like a team, we would be:

        like a fool
        who built his house
        upon sand;
        and the rain fell
        and the floods came
        and the winds blew
        and beat upon that house,
        and it fell;
        and great was the fall thereof.

        It is by working with these words ringing ever in our ears, it is by keeping them always in mind, that we will be able to raise in this corner of Africa an edifice and a name that will stand the test of time. It is only by fortifying o urselves with the sure and solid wisdom inspired by this solemn warning, and nourished by deep meditation and by an unbroken, fruitful dialogue, that we of this coalition can go forth afresh, and go forth with confidence, to govern and to guide.”

        • bro_came

          June 28, 2018 at 9:15 PM

          Who is this mad man of Saa is going to beat if he doesn’t hold his emotion? Stop making mad people important.

          And you Mbeuh who do you think has time to read your fucking, garbage and useless one book cut and paste story? Use your time wisely and stop using other people’s ideas. It’s a crime to copy others ideas without their consent.

      • bro_came

        June 28, 2018 at 9:00 PM

        What else do you know beside the insults? You black ass, son of a bitch. You people are free to write even to the Pope, but nothing will change. We will slowly and surely going to exterminate you for picking up arms against us and there is nothing the fucking USA can do. Noisy internet people.

        • bro_came

          June 28, 2018 at 9:05 PM

          This message is for the stupid guy called Saa.

  2. Marcel

    June 29, 2018 at 12:20 AM

    bro_came, are sure you are not jojo, he usually change names before spitting his venoms to any article concerning ambazonia. Useless bro_came (chev,jojo etc)

    • bro_came

      June 29, 2018 at 5:05 AM

      You fucking idiot do I need to change my name to let you know what I havenin mind? I may be useless, but I have a real country where I leave, how about you? Internet freak. We are coming at you brainless people and don’t just cry genocide.

  3. Malis

    June 29, 2018 at 3:24 AM

    I read the whole piece and I really do appreciate the write up.

    • Mbeuh

      June 29, 2018 at 5:50 AM

      Bravo to you sir. We ONLY stop learning the day we die. Paraphrasing a great author, he once said that IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment and that “The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book.” Or better yet on pen and paper. You Mr. Malis obviously do not fall in this category, but someone does. Reason for his gross ignorance

  4. Monkey Kola

    June 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM


    stop scribbling. Go and wire money, those youths in the forest need more banga.

    You think by enrolling child soldiers, who cannot even speak pidgin, you’re wise?

    Those same children will come after you.

    Anyway, continue enjoying with your own children in safety, for now.

    • Dinga

      June 30, 2018 at 12:20 AM

      All these jojos and other francophones writing here are doing just paid jobs. Ignore them plz.

      • Shillah

        June 30, 2018 at 6:44 AM

        Sure dinga francophone can never be patriotic citizens right. Well learn something new 2day. If u guy thought picking the arms n hiding secession behing corporatives demande was going to work u lied. Some of us saw it from start. Balla was only talking of federalism as a soft secession receipt. Now he is out for all of us to see. Call us paid agents, we will accept but never we will let ur narrative be consider the truth cz it isn’t.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


To Top


Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Support BaretaNews by making a small donation to sponsor our activities.