CI-NEWS

“No dialogue has ever taken place with smoking guns.”….Hon. Nchinda Simon, MP for the nation.

2019-09-17

No: 447

“No dialogue has ever taken place with smoking guns.”….Hon. Nchinda Simon, MP for the nation.

Cameroon’s Head of State, Paul Biya addressed the nation on September 10, 2019. The Head of State’s speech was long awaited due to the crisis rocking the two English speaking regions of Cameroon. There have been diversified interpretations of it across the political board. In the heat of the various interpretations, the press caught up with the firebrand and fearless Hon Fobi Nchinda Simon, SDF MP for Bamenda/Bali constituency, to comment on the speech. Read on.

You are known to be one of the fearless and proactive MPs that has often put the Biya government at the edge of its seat about issues that touch on the welfare of Cameroonians. What do you make of Biya’s address to the nation in relationship to the Anglophone crisis?

Three years have elapsed since the eruption of the now violent crisis, so we can conveniently say the Head of State’s address is coming too late. In the beginning, people carried peace plants and went down on the streets asking for dialogue. Mr. Biya’s response was to “neutralize” the combatant forces. We, the SDF parliamentarians wrote to Mr. Biya, pleaded with him, blocked his Prime Minister from addressing Parliament in a bid to cause government stop the violence. We even accompanied our National Chairman on a peace mission to Bamenda and Buea to call for dialogue. All these moves fell on the deaf ears of Mr. Biya.

So now Mr. Biya must take responsibility for the death of thousands of Cameroonians, both civilians and military, as well as the sufferings of hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons, and the loss of property; all of which could have been avoided. We are yet to have his apology.

As an Anglophone MP, what else did you find wanting in the Head of State’s speech?

I must state here categorically that Mr. Biya was addressing Francophones. We will all agree that he missed a golden occasion to deliver this particular address in the English language, the language of those very Cameroonians concerned by the crisis. At no point in his address did he talk directly to Anglophones. Unfortunately, he kept referring to them in the third person. He could have spoken to us directly as a father speaking to his children with soothing words appropriate for the trauma the Anglophones are going through. Yes, he missed that opportunity.

The Head of State outlined the genesis of the crisis and the concessions his government has so far made. Did this impress you that he is aware of all what happens in the nation?

Mr. Biya distorted historical facts, deliberately or unknowingly. He claims in his opening paragraph that the crisis was triggered by corporate demands made by lawyers and teachers. I put it to him that the Anglophone crisis has been brewing since the deliberate attempt by the Ahidjo and Biya governments, backed by the French, to sabotage the federation of 1961. The lawyers’ and teachers’ strikes were just one more manifestation of the dissatisfaction of the Anglophones.

If as Mr. Biya claims the problem started with the lawyers and teachers in 2016, can he then explain to us what he (with Aboeum A Tchoyi, Dorothy Njeuma) were doing in the 70s, presiding over a commission set up by Ahidjo to look into the Anglophone problem? It is important to point out this error in the diagnosis by Mr. Biya, because a wrong diagnosis invariably leads to a wrong prescription.

One can now understand why sometimes back in the heat of the crisis, MrBiya made declarations to the effect that, “the form of the state is non-negotiable.” This, to my mind is an indication that Mr. Biya knows the solution and is deliberately avoiding it.

Let it be said clearly that the solution to the Anglophone problem lies, to a great extent, or entirely in the form of the state, and this must be on the negotiation table.

Many Anglophones claimthe genesis of the crisis is their marginalization in a union that was forged on equal power sharing. Mr. Biya debunked this accusation in his speech. Do you buy his point?

Mr. Biya spurted out whole untruths about marginalization. He stated, “on this score, I wish to remind our compatriots in these regions, but also those in the 8 other regions of Cameroon, that marginalization, exclusion or stigmatization have never guided the work of the various governments I have formed since I became President of our country.” He goes on to cite as proof the fact that since 1992, the post of Prime Minister, Head of Government, has always gone to an Anglophone.

Again, I want to put it to MrBiya that the terms of the Union between Southern Cameroons and French Cameroon were based on equal power sharing between the two states. He of all persons should know that this has not been the case, and deliberately so. Should I go into the geographical composition of his governments or deposition of national powers to say unequivocally that he should revisit his declaration about the non-marginalization of Anglophones?

What to you are the major shortcomings of Biya’sspeech?

From simple observation, one goes away with the idea that the edifice of his speech harbors cracks. Let us look at the dialogue he intends to put in place. No dialogue has ever taken place with smoking guns. MrBiya was silent on the need for a ceasefire before dialogue. He claims that the security forces have taken energetic measures which “are currently bearing fruits with the improvement of security and the progressive resumption of economic activity in the two regions.” I presume that he is aware of the effective ‘lockdown’ in over 90% of the territories of the North West and South West regions. This means that the ‘Amba boys’ are still in predominant control while the armed forces are still deployed in combatant positions. Can anyone tell us how effective dialogue can go on (even including the presence of the defense and security personnel, as well as the Ambas) without a ceasefire?

Sometimes ago, there were rumours that dialogue has been initiated in Switzerland. Are you aware of such a move?

Well, whether such a move was afoot or not, we take note that Mr. Biya did not inform Cameroonians of any progress on the negotiating front, either from Switzerland or elsewhere. Are these negotiations still going on or has the Biya government turned its back to it as it is rumoured?

He is sending teams out to the Diaspora. Are these emissaries properly equipped and mandated to discuss with diaspora combatants. I fear that this might be the Achilles heals of the negotiations.

Some political pundits hold that Biya has been pressured into dialogue by the International Community. Do you share this view?

I think so, because it seems the dialogue has been hurriedly called without proper preparation. Pressure might have come from abroad. Whether this is true or not does no longer matter. What is important now is what comes out from there.

Prior to Biya’s decision for dialogue; some Anglophones floated the idea of holding an All Anglophone Conference. Is this idea still valid today?

Yes, still valid. However, those who have studied Mr. Biya postulated that he could never accept the holding of the All Anglophone Conference in prelude to a national dialogue. They advanced as reasons the double fear by Mr. Biya that out of such a conference could emerge an Anglophone leadership with an Anglophone plan of action. These are things that are anathema to MrBiya’sJacobinistcentralized powers. We can therefore see that the proposed consultation by the Prime Minister with the Anglophone regions and the Diaspora effectively falls short of the expectations of an All Anglophone Conference. Without a preliminary caucus, the Anglophones will go to the dialogue table in dispersed ranks, without a leader and without a program.

Biya quoted the constitution that gave him a leeway to convene the national dialogue. As a law maker, can you say he acted within his constitutional powers?

They are many who believe that Mr. Biya has been dragged to a dialogue over his resistance. He is fundamentally a Jacobinist and he rewrote the Constitution for Cameroon to be a decentralized Unitary State. Take note that in his address, he specifies that he is calling the national dialogue that will, “in line with our constitution,”enable us to seek ways and means to meet the high aspirations of the people of the North West and South West regions, but also of all the other components of our nation. Is he so far from his initial declaration that the form of the state is “non-negotiable?”

Luckily, the same constitution grants us ways of modifying it so that the form of the state can be revisited.

Paul Biya stated that the dialogue is opened to all Cameroonians to discuss specifically the Anglophone crisis. Can this be possible or practicable?

This is what he said, “the dialogue will therefore rally all the sons and daughters of our beloved and beautiful country…..” Let me be clear here. Without the preliminary All Anglophone Conference, the Anglophones will go into the dialogue in dispersed ranks as they did in Foumban. They will go in without a fixed program and without a consensus leadership; and they will be good for the slaughter. With all Cameroon present, the Anglophones will be overshadowed by a ratio of four to one, reminiscent of the 1972 Referendum. These among others are the things to be addressed as we prepare for dialogue with a Cameroon leadership that is bent on having a military solution in favour of a Jacobinist centralized power. In fact, a solution that does not grant even a single iota of special powers to the Anglophones. If that were the case, the military solution would aggravate the humanitariancrisis, repulsive to the International Community. It is imperative to engage the International Community in their role of moderators for a ceasefire between combatants in preparation for the grand dialogue.

Are you for the dialogue and what safety valves are you proposing to Anglophones?

Yes, we are for the dialogue and must go for the dialogue. But as we go, we the Anglophones must:

-remember the Foumban Conference were Anglophones went in dispersed ranks with no program and no leadership. We must have a pre-dialogue caucus.

-remember the 1972 Referendum where we were outnumbered and out-maneuvered on an issue that concerned us. Be careful about our issues that are put to vote.

-remember that contrary to Mr. Biya’s assertion, the Anglophone problem did not begin in 2016 with the teachers and lawyers. It began in 1961 with the power sharing between the two states. It is time to remedy it.

-remember that contrary to Mr. Biya’s claims, there is effective marginalization of Anglophones.

And finally, we must insist on a bilateral negotiated ceasefire to enable healthy discussions to take place. In addition, if the Anglophones discover during the dialogue that they are being railroaded into positions contrary to their interests, they should always remember the famous English saying that, “He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day.”

A PHP Error was encountered

A PHP Error was encountered

“No dialogue has ever taken place with smoking guns.”….Hon. Nchinda Simon, MP for the nation.