BaretaNews Editorial
The People’s Consultative Conference, TPCC, deserves the space to try. Our people deserve an opportunity to speak honestly amongst themselves, including with those whose political convictions they reject.
That opportunity must come without a demand that anyone surrender their beliefs. An independence supporter can enter a room, listen, challenge and leave still committed to a free Ambazonia. A federalist can participate without pretending to be an independentist. A unionist can explain a position without expecting everyone else to accept it.
The difficult question is what happens after everyone has spoken.
In his personal statement, Mark Bareta supports TPCC’s right to pursue consultation while withholding an outright endorsement of its leadership, proposals or eventual outcomes. That distinction deserves serious consideration. Giving an initiative room to work does not place it beyond scrutiny. Equally, questioning its prospects does not justify attacking everyone willing to participate.
For BaretaNews, the test is whether TPCC can build a credible process that listens to the people, respects their political choices and creates something more substantial than another conference communiqué.
A seat at the discussion is not a signature on a settlement
TPCC’s stated proposal invites people across unionist, federalist and independence positions without requiring them to abandon their convictions. Its proposed consultations would precede a physical conference planned for the first quarter of 2027. Read the TPCC proposal report. These are the convenors’ announced intentions; their implementation will determine the process’s credibility.
The organisers must therefore make a basic principle unmistakable: attendance cannot be presented as agreement with a predetermined political destination.
People must know what they are being invited to discuss, how representatives will be selected, how their contributions will be recorded and who will have authority to speak afterwards. A photograph of participants sitting together cannot become a substitute for a mandate.
The same applies to independence supporters. Entering a discussion does not erase the reasons they reached their position. Many carry personal experiences of loss, displacement, imprisonment or political disappointment. They should not be expected to put those experiences aside to make a meeting more comfortable.
A credible consultation must allow people to explain why their convictions became so deeply held.
Our disagreements will not disappear through insults
The political differences within the former British Southern Cameroons are real. Pretending otherwise leaves us poorly prepared for any meaningful engagement.
Mark Bareta’s account of once believing in and defending a united Cameroun illustrates a point that should encourage reflection. People’s political positions have histories. Convictions can change when institutions lose their trust, when grievances remain unanswered and when the response to demands for reform deepens the original injury.
Those who now support independence should be able to explain that journey. Those who favour another arrangement should be prepared to answer difficult questions about how their proposals would address the failures that brought us here.
Name-calling answers none of those questions.
TPCC should be judged by its conduct, transparency and willingness to accommodate disagreement. Participants should be judged by what they say and do. Nobody should have to prove loyalty by refusing every opportunity to speak.
The missing ingredient is political leverage
A consultation amongst our people and a negotiation with Cameroun are separate undertakings.
The first can identify priorities, expose disagreements and establish areas of common ground. The second requires engagement from those who hold state power, alongside arrangements that make commitments credible.
Switzerland announced a facilitation effort in June 2019. Canada announced in January 2023 that it had accepted a mandate to facilitate a peace process. These initiatives demonstrate that diplomatic openings have existed before. Their announcements also remind us that establishing a process is only a beginning.
BaretaNews’ assessment is that any new initiative must explain how it intends to overcome the obstacles that have frustrated earlier efforts. What would bring Cameroun into substantive engagement? Who could help sustain that engagement? What safeguards would prevent another process from becoming an exercise in delay?
These questions should guide TPCC’s work from the outset.
International involvement must also be assessed realistically. The Wall Street Journal has reported a U.S. military-aid arrangement linked to Cameroun’s acceptance of third-country deportees. Such reporting underlines how strategic interests can shape foreign policy even while rights concerns remain unresolved.
Our people cannot build a diplomatic strategy on the assumption that sympathy will automatically become pressure. External relationships require patient engagement, clear objectives and an honest understanding of what other governments are prepared to do.
The people carrying the cost must shape the agenda
A conference risks losing its purpose if those most affected by the conflict appear only in speeches delivered by others.
Families with relatives in prison, displaced communities, bereaved parents, young people whose education has been interrupted, women sustaining households and people living with the consequences of violence must have meaningful opportunities to contribute.
Their involvement should influence the questions asked and the priorities adopted.
Who will speak for people unable to travel? How will contributions from insecure communities be gathered safely? How will organisers prevent prominent personalities and established organisations from occupying all the available space?
A process claiming collective ownership must be able to answer those practical questions.
It must also make room for scrutiny of conduct on every side. Political convictions do not remove obligations towards civilians. Any route towards a settlement must take protection, accountability and the dignity of affected communities seriously.
Responsibility extends beyond TPCC
Those who say they want this conflict resolved must also consider what they are prepared to demand from the political institutions around them.
Mark Bareta’s challenge to political actors across the Mungo, and to Anglophone parliamentarians, raises a legitimate issue: why has concern about the conflict not produced a more effective, sustained political demand for a settlement?
Individual interventions matter. The harder task is building collective pressure that survives beyond a speech, an election or a moment of public outrage.
TPCC cannot carry that responsibility alone. Political representatives, civic organisations, religious authorities and international partners should each be asked what practical contribution they will make.
Declarations of concern need to be followed by persistent action.
Let TPCC try—and require it to remain answerable
BaretaNews supports the opportunity for honest consultation. That support carries expectations: an open agenda, transparent representation, respect for competing convictions and clear limits on who may claim to speak for the people.
TPCC must earn trust through its decisions. It should welcome questions, explain its relationships and resist any attempt to turn participation into consent.
Mark Bareta’s central message offers a useful starting point: talking does not take away your beliefs.
Let the conversation proceed. Let people attend with their convictions intact. Then let the organisers show how what they hear will shape a credible political effort.
Our people have endured too much for another gathering whose promises disappear when the meeting ends.
BaretaNews — The People’s Platform
