THE BAKWERI LAND PROBLEM AND THE · PDF fileTRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL IN 1951 BY ... event of the planned privatization of the Cameroon Development ... Privatisation of the Cameroon Development

THE BAKWERI LAND PROBLEM AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF THE

CAMEROON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CDC)

THE INTERNET DEBATES

(AUGUST – DECEMBER 1999)

EDITED BY DIBUSSI TANDE

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Tande, Dibussi (ed.).

The Bakweri Land Problem and the Privatization of the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC): The Internet Debates (August-December 1999) / by Dibussi Tande (ed.)

Appendices: P

1. Cameroon Development Corporation. 2. Privatization -- Cameroon. 3. Bakweri -- Kwiri (African people). 4. History -- 19th century. 5. Germany -- Colonies -- Cameroon. 6. Cameroon -- History -- 19th century.

All rights reserved Copyright 1999 Dibussi Tande

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION: THE MARCH 1999 BLC MEMORANDUM TO PRESIDENT BIYA................. 6

A. A Historical Background .................................................................................................................... 6 B. The 1974 Land Law (Ordinance No. 74-1 of 6 July 1974 to establish rules governing land tenure) . 7

CHAPTER ONE: INITIAL REACTIONS ON THE CAMNET INTERNET FORUM...................... 11

CHAPTER TWO: REVISITING THE GERMAN EXPROPRIATION OF BAKWERI LANDS ...... 16

CHAPTER THREE: THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE BAKWERI LAND PROBLEM ............ 23

CHAPTER FOUR: THE 1951 “BAKWERI PROBLEM” REPORT PRESENTED TO THE UN

TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL IN 1951 BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT....................................... 37

CHAPTER FIVE: DID THE GERMANS LEGITIMATELY PURCHASE BAKWERI LANDS? .... 41

CHAPTER SIX: EX-GOVERNOR GEORGE ACHU and EX-SDO ADE NGWA JOIN THE

DEBATE .............................................................................................................................................. 53

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE AMBE NJOH CONTRIBUTIONS............................................................ 61

CHAPTER EIGHT: WESTERN MULTINATIONALS MOVE IN.................................................... 66

CHAPTER NINE: THE BAKWERI DIASPORA COMMUNITY ENDORSES THE BLC

MEMORANDUM................................................................................................................................ 69

CHAPTER TEN: REACTIONS TO THE DIASPORA LETTER OF SUPPORT............................... 80

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 97

A. THE 1994 BLC MEMORANDUM ON THE CDC PRIVATIZATION................................................. 97 B- DIASPORA LETTER TO FAKO ELITE ..............................................................................................103

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................... 107

3

PREFACE Early in 1999, the Government of the Republic of Cameroon dispatched a number of its cabinet Ministers to the Southwest Province to allay fears of the natives of the province concerning the potential socio-economic and cultural disruptions within the within the Southwest Province in the event of the planned privatization of the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC), the primary employer in the province, after the Cameroon government. In reaction to the much publicized ministerial tour, which did not address most of the key concerns of the local population, the Bakweri Land Committee addressed a memorandum to the Cameroonian President in March 1999, in which it reiterated the fifty year-old Bakweri claims to the lands on which the CDC had established its agro-industrial complex after the Second World War. The Committee demanded, among other things, for an official recognition that the CDC lands historically and legally belonged to the natives of Fako division; that the CDC pay rents for its fifty year exploitation of these indigenous lands; and, called for the a direct involvement of the people of Fako, through selected representatives, in ongoing privatization negotiations that involve the handing over of Bakweri ancestral lands, that were originally seized by the Germans at the end of the 19th century, to third party 20th century multinational corporations. In August 1999, this memorandum, which had received little attention beyond Cameroonian government circles when it was initially written, was posted on the Internet from the United States of America. As soon as the memorandum became public, it generated a flurry of heated and sometimes acrimonious debate among the Cameroonians, many of whom had never heard of the Bakweri Land Problem, or where not aware of the extent and brutal nature of German land expropriation in Fako division in the late 19th century. In the course of the debates a general consensus emerged -- even among some of the most vocal supporters of the current Cameroonian regime-- that the CDC should not be privatized without an honest attempt by the Cameroonian government to address the long-standing grievances of the Bakweri people, and that being a very integral part of the lives of Anglophone Cameroonians, the CDC should not be sold to third parties without taking into account the interests of Cameroon’s Anglophone community for whom the corporation was established at the British government after the Second World War. The entirety of the CDC debates took place on Cameroonian Internet discussion forums in Europe and America, particularly on the Italy-based CAMNET, and the US-based CAMNETWORK, SCNC FORUM, and FAKONET. This publication is made up of a selection of some of the most interesting, controversial, passionate and instructive of these postings culled from about four months of heated on-line discussions that involved Cameroonians from all walks of life and from all corners of the globe. Although these debates were never meant to be a scientific poll on national feelings about the planned privatization of the CDC, they nonetheless stand out as the most reliable gauge of how Cameroonian masses feel about this privatization, especially with regards to the cavalier and secretive manner in which it is apparently being carried out, without any regard for the legitimate demands and grievances of the Cameroonian people.

4

This compilation has been made with hopes that it would achieve a number of goals, prominent among them;

1) Sensitize national and international opinion on the history of the CDC corporation in general and the Bakweri Land problem in particular

2) Prove to the government of Cameroon, if need be, that the CDC issue is one that should be taken very seriously because it is a very emotional and sensitive issue that transcends ethnic, partisan, ideological and even linguistic boundaries

3) Give the members of the Bakweri Land Committee, including the traditional and political leaders of Fako division, an opportunity to realize that theirs is not a lonely struggle for justice, and that all Cameroonians of goodwill are ready to give a helping hand. In this regard, it is our hope that this document will make the people of Fako to realize that this is not the time for solitary attempts at tackling the Cameroonian government, but that the time has finally come for cross-cutting alliances with credible Cameroonians from other parts of the country.

4) Create an awareness among the Fako elite that given the abundant wealth of information that exists out of Cameroon pertaining to the Bakweri land problem, the CDC itself, and to the ongoing process to privatize the CDC, all efforts must be made to include the Fako Diaspora community in all phases of the current campaign for restitution and/or compensation for the injustices perpetrated against the indigenes of Fako division for over a century.

5) Give those a the forefront of the Bakweri struggle a chance to study, and implement wherever possible, the myriad of proposals made by concerned Cameroonians all over the world.

6) And last but not the least, it is hoped that this publication will galvanize the Bakweri Land Committee into a more aggressive but pragmatic approach to the Bakweri land Problem, and that its members will capitalize on the prevailing wave of national sympathy and goodwill to look beyond their partisan, ideological and personal differences to build a strong, dynamic and united front that will include the best people that Fako division has to offer.

Dibussi Tande

Chicago December 1, 1999

5

INTRODUCTION: THE MARCH 1999 BLC MEMORANDUM TO PRESIDENT BIYA

BAKWERI (Fako Indigenes) LAND CLAIM COMMITTEE

C/o P.O. Box 124, Buea, South West Province.

3RD March 1999 H.E. President Paul Biya State House Yaounde. Your Excellency,

Privatisation of the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) A. A Historical Background A Delegation of several members of the government recently visited the South West Province with a view to explaining to the Chiefs, elite, and the population, Government’s intentions with regard to the Privatisation of the CDC, and to ally their fears on such questions as employment, social services, and land currently leased to the Cameroon Development Corporation. We must respectfully point out that the land leased to the Cameroon Development Corporation, on which stands the plantation developments for various crops, has a long history behind it. Some 104,000 hectares of the most fertile land in Fako Division was originally forcibly expropriated by the German colonial administration and handed over to German plantation developers without compensation to the dispossessed indigenes. Prior to 1914 the Bakweris whose land was grabbed protested to the German Imperial government in Berlin, but the corrective measures then contemplated were aborted by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. After the First World War, these plantations were classified as Enemy property but the only buyers who showed any interest were the original German planters, who returned and continued to exploit the land. When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the plantations again became Enemy property, but this time the British Colonial Government, (partly due to loud protests from the Bakweri Land Claims Committee both to the United Nations and the British Administering Authority) bought back all of the German estates from the Custodian of Enemy Property, declared the land “Native Lands” under the Lands and Native Rights Ordinance, and created the Cameroon Development Corporation in 1946 after due consultation with the indigenous Bakweris who had been dispossessed of their lands. The amount paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property was taken over as a loan by the CDC, which was able to repay it within a few years thus freeing the land from any encumbrances. British Cameroons was a territory under UN Trusteeship, so the Governor-General of Nigeria, representing the British Government as Trustee, originally leased these “Native Lands” to the CDC for a term of sixty years from 1st January, 1947. In order to show that the CDC was only a

6

tenant on the land which did not belong to it, it was required to pay Ground Rent to the Trustee who, had he acted correctly, should have paid the money to the dispossessed beneficiaries. Instead, this trust money has been misapplied to successive trustees, who have erroneously treated it as State revenue for the benefit of persons, the majority of whom have no interest in the alienated lands and whose occupation of their own ancestral lands is undisturbed. The view that the land was held in trust by the Governor of Nigeria is affirmed by studies carried out by the eminent British scholar Dr. C.K. Meek in his book “land Tenure and Land Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons” published in 1957 by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in London as Colonial Research Studies No. 22, the relevant portion of which reads:

And where the Government had itself assumed the position of landlord, it had done so to protective native interests: the vesting of the land in the Governor had not implied a transfer of the ownership of the land of the territory to the Governor but had merely conferred on him a power of supreme trusteeship. Nor did it affect the existing titles, whether community or individual.

Apart from the clamour by the Bakweri as a recent as 1994 when the question of the sale of CDC, or its privatisation, was first mooted, evidence of their sustained demand for the return of their lands would be found in the Petition of the Bakweri Land Claims Committee to the Trusteeship Council, in Report of the U.N. Trusteeship Council Visiting Mission, 1949, U.N. Doc. T/PET.4/3. Bakweri demand for restoration of their lands has spanned many decades, but fortunately, they now have a Government of their own people, to right the wrongs of the past. We therefore expect that our Government, in considering the privatisation of the CDC, will do so in keeping with the spirit and letter of the preamble in Law No. 96-06 of January 1996 to amend the Constitution of the 2nd June 1972 which in part states:

Proud of our linguistic and cultural diversity… Bound by the same destiny… assert our firm determination to build the Cameroonian fatherland on the basis of fraternity, justice, and progress. -the state shall ensure the protection of minorities and shall preserve the right of indigenous populations in accordance with the law. Ownership shall mean the right guaranteed every person by law to use, enjoy and dispose of property. No person shall be deprived thereof, save for public purposes and subject to the payment of compensation under conditions determined by law.

B. The 1974 Land Law (Ordinance No. 74-1 of 6 July 1974 to establish rules governing land

tenure) It has been presented in certain circles that the 1974 Land Law classified all CDC lands as National Lands to be administered by the State in such a way as to ensure rational use and development thereof. This argument has been used to justify the position of the State in negotiating the privatisation of the CDC. Let us now look at the relevant provisions of Ordinance No. 74-1:

7

PART I

General Provisions 1. (1) The State guarantees to all natural persons and corporate bodies having landed property

the right freely to enjoy and dispose of such lands.

(2) The State shall be the guardian of all lands. It may in this capacity intervene to ensure national use of land or in the imperative interest of defense or the economic policies of the nation. (3) The terms and conditions of such intervention shall be fixed by decree.

PART II

Private Property 2. The following categories of land shall be subject to the right of private property:

a) Registered lands; b) Freehold lands c) Lands acquired under the transcription system; d) Lands covered by a final concession; e) Land entered in the Grundbuch.

PART III

National Lands

14. (1) National lands shall as of right comprise lands which, at the date on which the present Ordinance enters into force, are not classed into the public or private property of the State and other public bodies. (2) National lands shall not include lands covered by private property rights as defined in Article 2 above (3) In the event of forfeiture as provided for in Articles 4 and 5 of the present Ordinance, or of non-completion of the procedure referred to in Article 6, the lands in question shall be incorporated as of right in the national lands. 15. National Lands shall be divided into two categories:

(1) lands occupied with houses, farms and plantations, and grazing lands, manifesting human presence and development;

(2) lands free of any effective occupation 16. (1) National lands shall be administered by the state in such a way as to ensure rational

use and development thereof.

8

(3) Consultative boards presided over by the administrative authorities and necessarily comprising representatives of traditional authorities shall be established for this purpose.

17. (1) National lands shall be allocated by grant, lease or assignment on conditions to be pursued

by decree

(2) Provided that customary communities, members thereof, and any person of Cameroonian nationality occupying or exploiting lands in category 1 as defined in Article 15, at the date on which the present Ordinance enters into force, shall continue to occupy or exploit the said lands. They may apply for land certificates in accordance with the terms of the decree provided for in Article 7.” *************************************************************************** At the coming into force of Ordinance No. 74-1, CDC lands were the subject of a lease granted by the trustee for the Bakweri indigenes that had been dispossessed. In order to grant the lease, the land was fully surveyed, demarcated and registered, as ground rent payable by CDC was based on area. There can be no doubt whatsoever that by definition CDC lands fell in the domain of private property, over which the indigenes have a right to apply for a land Certificate. The confusion in the minds of certain people arises from Article 15(1) quoted above. The lands referred to in that article are those not clearly demarcated or registered anywhere officially, nor belonging to any person. Thus, if someone establishes a cattle ranch somewhere in Cameroon, or even a plantation, such land is still national land until the Consultative Board, as prescribed by Art. 16920, has met over the lands, surveyed and demarcated it, whereupon the occupier may apply for a land certificate. This cannot possibly apply to CDC occupied land, which has been mapped and registered in official records prior to the commencement of the Land Ordinance of 1974. These CDC occupied lands were known even to the German colonial administration, and would have featured in the official German land registers, because as many as 23 German plantations were involved. These lands were entered in the Grundbuch, and do not fall in the category of National Lands over which the State has powers of intervention. Having now demolished the argument of lands occupied by CDC being labeled State Lands, the position of the Bakweris is that upon Cameroon attaining independence, the role of the State in continuing to act as trustee over Bakweri lands, effectively ended. Existing contracts, e.g., the original 60 years granted by the Governor General of Nigeria, should be allowed to run its full course. Any subsequent extension of that lease by a Government of Cameron, however called, in invalid, as the trustee relationship terminated when Cameroonians assumed political independence and were not subject to control by a foreign imperial power. The trusteeship status had ended. Thus, however good the intentions of the Cameroon government may be in courting external finance in order to cater for thousands of employed Cameroonians working or dependent on the CDC, the truth of the matter is that the State cannot arrogate to itself the administration of property it does not own. Undoubtedly, the Bakweri can muster the manpower to negotiate with foreign investors over their lands, while, in the interest of national unity and to protect the interest of workers, Government should play a catalyst role to ensure equity to al parties concerned.

9

If because of economic exigencies, privatisation is the immediate remedy, we humbly pray your Excellency, as head of State of the independent democratic Cameroon Republic, to accede to the following requests of a loyal and law-abiding minority:

(i) Affirm that lands occupied by the CDC are private property, and therefore that ground rents are payable to a Bakweri Land Trust Fund for the benefit of the dispossessed indigenes

(ii) In respect of unpaid rents over the years, these should be paid to the Bakweri Land Trust Fund and the amount charged to public Revenue, or deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the plantations to private companies.(As stated above, this non-payment amounted to misconduct by the Trustee)

(iii) The Bakweris should be fully involved in the negotiations with private

companies wishing to invest, and grant them reasonable terms to make investment attractive

(iv) The Bakweri Land Trust Fund should use its resources to purchase

shares in the private companies, among other things. While we eagerly await your profound consideration to our petition, Accept, Mr. President, our humble regards to your high office. (Over 300 signatories of Chiefs, Notables and Elites to the above petition are contained in the accompanying sheets) Billa F. Manga Williams Paramount Ruler Victoria Coastal District Traditional Authority Chief Philip Mofema Ewusi Chairman, Bakweri Land Claims Committee

10

CHAPTER ONE: INITIAL REACTIONS ON THE CAMNET INTERNET FORUM

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:15:42 PDT Sender: Discussion on Cameroon's Topics <[email protected]> From: austin bessong <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands I hope the Chiefs of Fako (the land of my birth) should stand for what is rightly theirs. I think their claim is justifiable. God should guide you all the way. My prayers to you chiefs. a. Bessong

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:49:19 PDT From: "J. J. Asongu" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC LandsComments: To: [email protected] Dear BLCC Members, Accept my congratulations and more grease to your elbows. This is a well-written document that you should keep for posterity. You cannot quietly sit and allow your land to be taken away. Asong

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:20:12 PDT From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC LandsComments: To: [email protected] Allow me to think aloud on three things that should be considered seriously. This is my layman's thinking. First, it is my understanding that the 1974 Land law was motivated by Mr. Ahidjo's desire to give land to the nomadic peoples of the country, particularly the Bororos, who suddenly found themselves in a very strong position vis-à-vis the traditional land owners. In view of the monolithic situation at the time (rule by decree prevailing and decrees are above the law) no one contested the unfairness of the law. This move may open the possibility of a redefinition of land ownership based on the case being put across below. Second, this occasion should be used to define property rights. I wonder whether anyone has challenged the situation where, in the present statutes these are not defined, thereby giving the 1974 law "misplaced" legitimacy. The BLC situation poses this issue.

11

http://listserv.cnr.it/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908&L=camnet&D=0&P=55390






Third, the Ndu Tea Estate is an integral part of the CDC holding and should also benefit from the move of the BLC. This is a courageous move that should be encouraged. LTandap

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:27:09 +1000 From: Johnson Nkem <[email protected]> Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC LandsComments: To: Bakweri Land Committee <[email protected]> Shouldn't the title be related to CDC land in Fako? If not, will it not be a better teamwork to involve the fon of Ndu, the chiefs of Djutista-Dschang, Penda Mboko and those of Mbonge and Iluani where CDC is occupying their lands? However, it is a good idea. Just thinking aloud. Johnson

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:40:08 -0700 From: "Charles S. U. Wiysonge" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [scncforum] The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands It surprises that Fako chiefs can stand against a government decision. Just wondering aloud. We also have the CDC in Ndu, NW. The Rt Hon Lord Shey Umaru Wiysonge MMP YCPDM National Bureau, CPDM Central Committee CEPRAS (Health Promotion Unit, CPDM CC) Permanent Member, Central Committee Delegation to Bui.

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:43:44 PDT From: austin bessong <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands Of course, it comes a time when the people must somehow stand for what they believe in. Enough is a enough!!! When the funds from these plantations and being funnel to international financial institutions and people of Fako are left with no "white" franc. a. Bessong

12




Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:49:50 -0400 From: Pa Fru Ndeh <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands I applaud and very loudly so, the moves of the people of Fako through their paramount rulers. It is up to all those who were dispossessed of their lands to act accordingly and defend what is rightfully theirs. Fako people cannot speak for Ndu people and vice versa. Fako people have done their job. It is up to Ndu people to do theirs if they have not already done so. Both and other communities involved can coordinate their actions. The synergy of these actions would yield better fruit... Blessed Be Cameroon Kenneth Fru Ndeh

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:59:56 +0100 From: "Nkohkwo, Asa'ah" <Asa'[email protected]>Subject: Question time / RE: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC LandsComments: To: "Charles S. U. Wiysonge" <[email protected]> The Rt Hon Lord Shey Umaru Wiysonge MMP YCPDM National Bureau, CPDM Central Committee CEPRAS (Health Promotion Unit, CPDM CC) Permanent Member, Central Committee Delegation to Bui. M'Lord, As the only MMP with insider knowledge of the CPDM Essin...quoi(?) corridors of power, judging from your above credentials, perhaps you'd allow us lesser ones seize the transparency window you provide to yearn a bit further on this very vexed palaver, that may yet escalade into a change catalyst in Kamerunia. Your noble lordship is overtly surprised that: "Fako chiefs can stand against a government decision. Just wondering aloud. We also have the CDC in Ndu, NW." Yes, a gov't decision it threatens to become unless knights like your good self disappoint Comrade Biya and fail to convince all those Molas, Ashies, Sangos and Kwihfons during this very lengthy consultation period on the subject of the CDC privatisation Green Paper. Those Molas have set the protest ball rolling by demanding to know where they as hitherto passive landlords stand in all this gossip between your good selves, Paris and the IMF. Obviously, your noble self would not want the embarrassment of these divine messengers impeding ye supreme comrade's government White Paper, when eventually that comes to light. So tell Matango House and with a straight face what message the BLCC should expect to take back to Hfako, from Yaounde.

13





We are all loosing sleep, including your very own Doctas Asongu, Yengi, Pa KPA and the clan at Kingston-on-T. Dr Asa'ah T. Nkohkwo FIBMS, MHSM Nuclear Medicine Royal Marsden Hospital SUTTON, SM2 5PT, London.

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:04:53 -0600 Fom: "Elias K. Bongmba" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Question time / RE: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands Asa'ah Very good piece. In plain language, it is time for the government of Cameroon to assist the Fako people get what is theirs through peaceful deliberations without grounding privatisation and structural adjustment/maladjustment. This issue ranks high up there as one of the most challenging to face the Cameroon government since independence. The implication of actions taken in response to this issue will have a profound affect on economic and interpersonal relations in the region in the years to come. No long commentary on this one. I'd rather pray, and I will. It is my prayer justice will prevail. Elias Bongmba

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:48:33 GMT From: Jude Eze Okafor <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Question time / RE: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands Hello Doc. Bongmba, I assure you the government and the people of Fako will resolve this issue in a judicious manner consistent with democracy and economic prosperity. Jude E. Okafor

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:26:44 -0400 From: Lyombe Eko <[email protected]>Organization: University of Maine Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands [email protected],.Internet writes: >Third, the Ndu Tea Estate is an integral part of the CDC holding and >should also benefit from the move of the BLC.

14






Dear Dr. Tandap, You are quite correct. The Ndu Tea Estate will also be privatized with the rest of the CDC. French companies so far seem to have the advantage in the running. The people of Donga Mantung in general, and Ndu in particular, must make their voice heard on this issue or the land will be sold from under them. Remember the French say, "l'absent a toujours tort." "Those who keep silent in the face of injustice, DIE." Wole Soyinka. Have a productive day, doctor. Lyombe Eko

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 9:24 AM Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands At last our Bakwerian brethren have woken up. I had appealed to them some time ago to take up this fight. They must not be allowed to lose their birthright. Look at East Timor, Indonesia tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the population so that Indonesia could lord it over those island. After 23 years the UN is back to supervise the process through which East Timorians would be free at last. The Bakweri lands occupied by CDC this "permanent unchanging title" which went from Colonial Development Corporation (CDC) to Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) to Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) like today's oil never really shared the natural wealth drawn from Bakweri lands. With its legal resources, it would be unfortunate for the Bakweri not to step up this fight to prevent what is for all practical purposes expropriation of a people's wealth and birthright. This fight must be put in its proper context as an integral part of the fight for Southern Cameroons political and legal rights. God bless your efforts. Michael Azefor

From: Pa Fru Ndeh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 9:50 AM Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands I applaud and very loudly so, the moves of the people of Fako through their paramount rulers. It is up to all those who were dispossessed of their lands to act accordingly and defend what is rightfully theirs. Fako people cannot speak for Ndu people and vice versa. Fako people have done their job. It is up to Ndu people to do theirs if they have not already done so. Both and other communities involved can coordinate their actions. The synergy of these actions would yield better fruit... Blessed Be Cameroon Kenneth Fru Ndeh

15

CHAPTER TWO: REVISITING THE GERMAN EXPROPRIATION OF BAKWERI LANDS

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:01:47 -0700 From: Bakweri Land Committee <[email protected]>Subject: Revisiting the Bakweri Land Expropriation Saga The Bakweri Land Committee is thrilled by the largely favorable response that its letter to President Biya has so far garnered among Cameroonians in the Diaspora. It is the Committee’s fervent wish that all Cameroonians of good faith will rally behind the Bakweri clamor for justice and equity with regards to the Bakweri Land Problem.. The committee is nonetheless troubled by the fact that some Cameroonians continue to trivialize this issue without having a clear grasp of the facts. Since it is our belief, however that such reactions stem from ignorance rather than from a deliberate case of bad faith, we will do our best to further clarify the Bakweri position whenever necessary. First of all, it is wrong to claim as some have done, that the Bakweri deserve their fate because the “reacted too late” to the spoliation of their lands. As the BLCC memo clearly points out, the calls for redress were made as early as the 1900s, and the Bakweri Land Committee was born in 1946, that is, even before the creation of the CDC. Secondly, at no time have the Bakweri ever said that they are against the privatization of the CDC. No! we are for the taking into account of the historic, cultural and economic rights of the Bakweri by those involved in the planned privatization (this last point will be developed further in a subsequent posting). At this point a recapitulation of the Bakweri Land problem from its beginning in 1884 and to the birth of the bilingual Cameroon Republic in 1961 will complement the BLCC memo, which largely focuses on the post-independence era. GERMANS EXPROPRIATION OF BAKWERI LANDS Practically all the lands acquired for plantation agriculture by the Germans were forceful taken from the natives. True, Bakweri chiefs insignificant parcels of land to early German companies such as Woerman and Jantzen, but the bulk of the land taken over by the Germans, was seized particularly after the rebellion by the Bakweri chieftain Kuva Likenye was crushed in 1894. The German government took the expropriation campaign a step further in 1896 by decreeing that all unoccupied land would henceforth become crown land. The concept of "unoccupied land" as conceived by the Germans was a fallacy because the notions of land ownership and land occupation among the Bakweris were quite different from those of the Germans. The result was that thousands of people lost "unoccupied land" which was rightfully theirs. To make the drawing of plantation boundaries easier, and to gain possession of all fertile lands in the Fako area, the Germans drove the Bakweris out of their villages and herded them into barren, inhospitable, inaccessible and disease infested pieces of lands, the so-called NATIVE RESERVES. Torn from the familiar lands of their ancestors, deprived of farming and hunting

16



lands, and barred from trespassing on "German lands", the Bakweris practically lost their socio-cultural bearings. The effects of this are still being strongly felt a century later. This tragic situation was the direct result of one of the most inhumane and disgraceful episodes of colonialism in Africa; one, which has been deliberately left out of most of our history books. By the time the First World War began, the Germans had expropriated over two hundred thousand acres of the most fertile lands in Fako division, and the German GENOCIDE on the Bakweris was peacefully going on in the Native Reserves. After the war, even the stoic British were totally appalled by the conditions at these Native Reserves. They tried to make amends but the German companies, which had been allowed to continue their operations in the region, refused to make land concessions to the natives. It was only in 1931 that the British government reached an agreement with some of these companies, particularly the WAPV, which ceded some 6000 hectares to reservations around the Victoria area in exchange of land in...Misselele still in present-day Fako!!!). No doubt that the problem remained endemic until the outbreak of the Second World War. THE CREATION OF THE CDC With the outbreak of the war, the British finally decided to take over the plantations owned by German companies and individuals, which were sequestrated under the Custodian of Enemy Property Act. In 1946, Ordinance No. 38 of 1946, the Ex-enemy Lands(Cameroon), empowered the Governor to officially take over the sequestrated lands. A second ordinance, Ordinance No. 39 still of 1946, set up the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC), to which "leases of the lands acquired by the governor were to be granted for the purpose of developing these lands for the benefit of the people". The lands were LEASED for "sixty years, renewable for an equivalent term at the Corporation's option". The land titles were vested in the Central Government of Nigeria, but these were passed on to the government of Southern Cameroons in 1954 when the region gained internal autonomy within the Nigerian federation. It is ludicrous to claim that the 1999 petition of the BLCC comes “too late” or that the Bakweri should have acted much sooner. In fact, the first known petitions were written in August 1946 by the Bakweri Land Committee, which was created "to take charge of all the land in Victoria division which virtually belongs to the natives". These petitions that outlined the Bakweri positions on the fate of the German plantations, including concise demands for compensation, were sent to the Chief Secretary of the Eastern province OF Nigeria, and to the British Colonial Secretary Creech Jones. The United Nations actually studied the possibility of handing back these lands to the Bakweris, and negotiations were still going on when the British went ahead to create the CDC without duly consulting the Bakweris. The furious Bakweri leaders petitioned the UN about British duplicity and the world body granted the Bakweri Land Committee the opportunity to directly state its case at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Dr. E.M.L. Endeley was selected to represent the Bakweris, but he never made the trip; the committee could not afford the four hundred Pounds needed for the trip, and the British government refused to foot the bill after initially agreeing to do so. The Bakweris never had another chance to echo their plight in the halls of the UN. Yes, Bakweri protest is not a recent phenomenon as some detractors claim.

17

However, a British commission was formed in 1947 under Lieutenant Commander Bridges (Senior district officer) to further investigate Bakweri claims. The commission presented its findings to a UN mission to the Cameroons in 1949. It found out that there was truly an acute shortage of land caused by the mammoth land expropriation in the area. The British maintained that the plantations should not be handed over to the Bakweris because running these estates required "resources far beyond the local Bakweri villagers who have no conception of the capital or technical assistance required to do the job". The commission concluded that each household in the region needed an average of six hectares of land for farming and other needs. It discovered that the majority of communities needed over ten thousand hectares to bring the average household holding to the above figure. The commission proposed that the recently created CDC should cede some of its lands to the natives. The commission also proposed some accompanying measures, among them, the control of immigration and settlement of non-natives in the area, and the establishment of a Land Registry and a satisfactory system of leases. By the time the British left in 1961, this resettlement plan had not been implemented and the Bakweri demand for compensation was still pending. And the post-independent government never bothered. Instead it was bent on perpetuating a century-old injustice… CONCLUSION To recapitulate the main points in rejoinder, the Germans violently expropriated over 98% of the lands that they used for plantation agriculture in Fako. By the time they left Cameroon, they had alienated about four hundred square miles of the most fertile land around Mount Fako area alone, and stripped the Bakweris of over two hundred thousand acres of their most fertile lands. During this period, the Bakweris were kicked out of their villages and herded off into "Native Reserves" like cattle; a fate no different from that of American Indians. Secondly, the British government did not sell, but leased the former German estates to the CDC. The Bakweri demand for compensation or the restitution of some of the lands of the CDC is therefore historically justifiable, grounded in legality, and morally defendable. While this problem might mean nothing to the rest of Cameroon, since we never pay enough attention to our own history, it remains a major issue among the Bakweris. In fact, it can safely be assumed that this is one of the rare issues on which the Bakweris speak with the same voice. MAY JUSTICE FINALLY PREVAIL!!!! Dibussi Tande, on behalf of the Bakweri Land Committee

18

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:22:59 EDT From: Kenneth Fru Ndeh <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Revisiting the Bakweri Land Expropriation Saga Hfako Brethren, Motion de soutien. You deserve all the respect and dignity. Blessed Be Cameroon Kenneth Fru Ndeh BY THE WAY: Radio Trottoir has it that they put a son of the soil at the helm in the hope that the sale - read auction - of CDC will materialize with him there. I bet they now realize that c'est une mission impossible. The custodians of the soil must have a fair say. Yes, you are not against any sale but against auctioning off your land. Continue to say it louder brothers and sisters...

From: GBTANGWA [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 8:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [scncforum] Re: Revisiting the Bakweri Land Expropriation Saga As a non-Diasporan, non-Bakwerian Southern Cameroonian, with an attentive ear to the grassroots, I would like to assure the Bakweri Land Committee that its memo to President Biya has not found enthusiastic support only among Cameroonians of the Diaspora but equally among Cameroonians of all boards generally. They would be surprised how many ordinary Cameroonians would stand up and stick out their necks to back them. The demands of the BLC are as firmly historically grounded, legally defensible and morally imperative as those of the SCNC, and no one interested in genuine democracy, as opposed to democratic rhetoric and posturing, can fail to be sympathetic to these demands. This incidentally shows that the struggle of the BLC (as well as that of any other indigenous peoples), that of the SCNC, and that for genuine democratisation are of one seamless piece, and commitment to any of these while completely ignoring the others is myopic. That said, it is to be hoped that the BLC is fighting for the rights of the dispossessed common people of Bakweriland and not simply posturing to extract lucrative concessions from the Biya regime for a handful of Fako elites. Many political observers believe that the appointment of Honorable Peter Mafany Musonge as Prime Minister was dictated by the great interest of the Biya regime and its neo-colonial masters in appropriating the CDC plantations. With Musonge as PM and 'head of government' the BLC is in a very difficult position to push its case. The BLC has stated that it is not against privatisation of the CDC. That being the case, and given the subtle under-the -table methods of the Biya regime, a skeptic on behalf of the non-elite Bakwerian would only be assured if the BLC were to first insist on regaining ownership of these lands before democratically deciding whether to privatise them and who to lease them to. Demands of this type, accompanied by motions of unflinching support for the regime in Yaounde, call for too much credulity and ought to be taken with a healthy pinch of snuff.

19


Long live the indigenous rights of Bakweri people! Long live the indigenous and democratic rights of all groups of Cameroonians! Godfrey B.Tangwa

Date: Sat, 21Aug 1999 14:29:32 -0400 From: Lyombe Eko <[email protected]>Organization: University of Maine Subject: Bakweri lands occupied by CDC Dear Dr. Asongu, You wrote, >For the records, the decision to petition the gov't was made by the BLCC and >>NOT the Bakwere chiefs as some people, including my learned friend Dr. >>Charles Shey Umaru Wiysonge, were tempted to think. >> >>While we wait for the CPDM gov't to solve this situation, our adversaries >>on the CPDM/gov't bench can be assured that the SW chiefs have not >wavered from their unflinching adoration of the CPDM. The chiefs are PROBABLY >too cautious to take a decision that will make them appear as not supporting the >>Biya-Musonge gov't. God forbid! That the best way to lead their people, i.e. >>by accepting whatever the CPDM/gov't says. >> >>Long live the BLCC and may your work bear fruits beyond the limits of Fako Division. With all due respects, permit me to request that you refrain from politicizing and confusing the Bakweri CDC lands issue. The record shows that as early as February 1999, the chief of Hfako division, led by Chief Ewusi of Gbeya (Buea) refused to listen to explanations from a ministerial delegation from Yaounde which had been sent to "explain" the sale of CDC. The report came from Isha'a Boh, and Pa Atekwana who was in Cameroon at that time, wrote an eye-witness account confirming the Boh story. The chiefs want the land more than the BLCC. The chiefs may have taken a position against secession but they want the Bakweri CDC lands in the Cameroon of here and now, not in a future Republic of Southern Cameroon. They have a right to their opinion, and like democrats, we must respect that. I trust your note is not a cynical attempt to politicize and trivialize the issue. The Bakweri CDC lands issue is non-partisan. Diehard members of the CPDM, the SDF and a whole alphabet soup of other parties are behind the issue. Please do not dilute it with cheap partisan political potshots. Have a productive day, sir. Lyombe Eko

20



Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:54:38 -0600 From: John Mbaku <[email protected]>Subject: The CDC Land Issue Dear Professor Lyombe Eko: The CDC issue is part of the larger issue of property rights to environmental resources. During colonialism, the Europeans abrogated African property rights in land and other environmental resources, introduced private property rights and re-assigned the latter to European mercantile companies (e.g., in Nigeria, the Royal Niger Company; in Cameroon, the Gessellschaft Nordwest-Kamerun and the Gessellschaft Sud-Kamerun) through the creation of land concessions. Unfortunately, at independence, the issue of property rights, especially in land and its resources (e.g., the minerals within) was never put to a national debate. Thus, rich timber resources, petroleum and bauxite deposits, etc., (no matter where they are located) are considered federal property and their exploitation is administered from the center (supposedly for the benefit of society as a whole) as was the case during colonialism. Unfortunately, corruption and patronage, as was evident in the Ahidjo government, have made certain that these resources are exploited primarily to benefit the ruling class. The population at large, and especially the people in whose ancestral lands these resources are found, receive no benefits, but must absorb the negative externalities generated by exploitation (e.g., pollution, rape of the environment, etc.). The real solution to this quagmire lies in the establishment of well-defined and enforced property rights, especially in environmental resources. As I have suggested elsewhere, environmental resources should be owned, controlled and managed by the local communities. Federal or central government involvement should be through taxation of the income generated by such exploitation. The taxes can be used to redistribute income to less endowed regions. Local communities can contract management of these resources to private agencies. The latter, however, serve at the pleasure of these communities. Why not "return" ownership of the CDC lands to the local communities and use fiscal policy to deal with any distributive issues? John Mukum Mbaku

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:55 UTC+1 From: Ndzie Germain-Blaise <[email protected]>Organization: Giesserei-Institut RWTH-Aachen Subject: Re: The CDC Land Issue Salut Mbaku! La question que tu poses à la fin de ton mail est la seule question a laquelle ceux qui crient aujourd'hui contre la privatisation de la CDC ne veulent pas du tout répondre. Tu as écrit ceci: " why not "return" ownership of the CDC lands to the local communities and use fiscal policy to deal with any distributive issues? "

21





Il y a un an environ j'avais déjà fait la proposition suivante pour ce problème de la CDC: - Faire un recensement des différentes familles a qui le terrain concerne appartenait de part leur lieu d'habitation. - Prendre les mesures nécessaires pour que ces familles obtiennent des titres fonciers collectifs. - choisir soit l'option de location de terrain ou bien alors d'achat du terrain de gré a gré par la société qui prendrait la gestion de la CDC. L'option de location du terrain est pour moi la meilleure car elle assurerait aux populations concernées des revenues annuelles sans leur prendre le terrain. Mais il ne faut pas aussi ignorer qu'un investisseur ne pourrait pas être satisfait des contrats de courte durée. Donc pour moi des durées de 15 a 20 ans seraient assez raisonnables. Voila un peu ce que j'avais propose, mais comme toujours certains voyaient quelque part les écrits d'un RDPCiste et alors c'était mauvais. Bonne journée. ndzie.

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:29:32 -0400 From: Lyombe Eko <[email protected]>Organization: University of Maine Subject: Re: The CDC Land Issue Professor Mbaku, As usual, you hit the nail on the head! I could never improve on your insightful analysis. As I have said before, I have the distinct impression that you, Steve Andoseh and a couple of other articulate members of this forum are modern day Biblical John the Baptists preaching in the wilderness. As an optimist, I believe that one day, even the most corrupt and power drunk bureaucrat in Cameroon will pay heed to your message. Have a productive day, Professor. Lyombe Eko

22



CHAPTER THREE: THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE BAKWERI LAND PROBLEM

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:06:49 -0700 From: Bakweri Land Committee <[email protected]> Subject: The Bakweri Petition the United Nations It was exactly 53 years ago to the day…

(AFRICA [Journal of the Royal African Society], Vol. 18, No 4, October 1948, p. 307)

PETITION OF THE BAKWERI LAND COMMITTEE, CAMEROONS UNDER BRITISH

MANDATE The petition dated 24 August 1946 was forwarded to the Governor of Nigeria with a request that it be presented to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. The petition formulated a demand on the part of the Bakweri Land Committee, which claims to represent ‘the entire populace of the Bakweri people i.e. including the sub tribes of Bota and Bimbia of the Victoria division in the Cameroons under British Mandate’, for the return of 580 square miles of land which were alienated by German Government during their administration of the area, and sold or leased as plantations, or to missions, or retained as Crown lands. The Bakweri Land Committee states that there was no legal sale of land to the German administration or any agreement concluded with the Bakweri people; they state also that the areas remaining to them are ‘rocky barren upland slopes’, or swamps and bogs unfit for cultivation; that they have attempted cultivation on the mountain slopes without success, except in the case of coco-yam, which has proved unsuitable for food, and that they therefore suffer from malnutrition; further, the cultivation of these mountain areas imposes too heavy a strain on the women who ‘by custom are the planters of our locally consumed food stuffs’, and causes early breakdowns in health, infant mortality, and deterioration of the people. The Bakweri land Committee therefore asks that all land shall be returned to the Bakweri people, that its cultivation shall be regulated by the Native Authority who, in consultation with the committee, shall apply any profits accruing for the benefit of the people. They also ask, as compensation for the exploitation of their land, for costs equal to the proceeds which have accrued from the plantation during the last five years. The petition was duly forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. On 9 June 1948 certain observations by the United Kingdom government on the petition were forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in which it was pointed out that ALL LANDS HAD BEEN DECLARED NATIVE LANDS and had been placed under the control of the Governor of Nigeria TO BE ADMINISTERED FOR THE USE AND COMMON BENEFIT OF THE NATIVES; that the Nigerian government had repurchased 14,851 acres of plantation land for the benefit of the natives, and that THE CAMEROON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAD BEEN SET UP TO ADMINISTER AND DEVELOP THE PANTATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME

23

AS THE BAKWERI PEOPLE WERE COMPETENT TO MANAGE THEM WITHOUT ASSISTANCE; moreover, a senior Administrative Officer had been appointed to make a survey of land in the Victoria division in order to ensure that the inhabitants had fully adequate land for subsistence farming. c Africa (1948) The struggle definitely continues!!!

24

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:40:11 +0100 Sender: Discussion on Cameroon's Topics <[email protected]> From: Nfor N Susungi <[email protected]>Subject: Bawkwere Land Committee I wish to thank the members of the Bakwere Land Committee for sharing the extract of the article in (AFRICA [Journal of the Royal African Society], Vol. 18, No 4, October 1948, p. 307) entitled: PETITION OF THE BAKWERI LAND COMMITTEE, CAMEROONS UNDER BRITISH MANDATE. In doing this the Bakwere Land Committee has acknowledged for the first time that the issue of the privatization of the CDC, despite its implications for the land question concerning the Bakwere people, is an issue of larger legitimate public interest than it has been treated so far by the Bakwere people. In reading the article it sounds like something which was written yesterday, rather than 50 years ago. But it only goes to show that there is no statute of limitations on a peoples right to their property. In placing this issue in the public domain, I assume that the Bakwere Land Committee is finally giving the larger Cameroonian public the opportunity and the invitation to examine the issues along with them and make useful contributions to understanding this complex problem. After reading the postings by the Bakwere Land Committee, I went into my archives and dug out a copy of the 1951 issue of Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship prepared by the British Colonial Office for the General Assembly of the United Nations. In this issue, the Bakwere Land problem was treated in quite some detail. Indeed in response to the Bakwere Land Committee petition dated 24 August 1946 which was forwarded to the Governor of Nigeria with a request that it be presented to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, the Trusteeship Council heard the case in 1950. The following is an extract of the 1951 Report which explains what happened: “The question came up for the discussion at the Sixth Meeting of the Council in March, 1950. The Council gave full consideration to the question and passed the following resolution: - The Council notes with approval that by virtue of the Ex-Enemy Lands (Cameroons) Ordinance, 1946, and the Cameroons Development Corporation Ordinance, 1946, more than 250,000 acres of land formerly alienated have been declared to be native lands and are being developed for the common benefit of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory by the Cameroons Development Corporation; 1. Endorses the view of the Visiting Mission that the standards of sanitation, health, nutrition and general moral well-being of the Bakweri are at such a level that they must be the subject immediately of active and positive assistance on the part of the Administration or the Cameroons Development Corporation or both; 2. Commends the plans of the Administering Authority and the Cameroons Development Corporation for the solution of the problems of the Bakweri and other peoples living in the neighbourhood by means of policy of controlled and assisted resettlement on land with an ultimate extent of 25,000 acres to be excised from those now leased to the Corporation, and expresses the hope that the people concerned will co-operate fully with the Administration and the Corporation in the implementation of these plans; 3. Endorses the conclusion and recommendations of its Visiting Mission on the Bakweri Problem and, while noting the steps already being taken by the Administering Authority in this connexion, 4. Further recommends that: � increased efforts should be made to explain to the Bakweri that the ex-enemy lands have in fact

25

http://listserv.cnr.it/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908&L=camnet&D=0&m=32392&P=91521


reverted to the people of the Trust Territory and that ownership is now legally vested in them; � increased efforts should be given to the adequate training of the indigenous inhabitants to enable them to participate increasingly in the affairs of the Corporation; � a constant programme of public relations be developed to demonstrate to the people the extent to which the operations of the Corporation are of real benefit to them; that special attention should be given to the rehabilitation of the Bakweri by means of special contributions from the Corporation’s earnings; � The Administration’s policy of controlled and assisted resettlement should be put into effect as quickly as possible, and should be extended whenever appropriate to all peoples living in the neighbourhood of the plantations or in other areas where similar conditions exist.’ 493. A team of experts assembled at Buea later in 1950 to decide in co-operation with the Bakweri people how the resettlement programme proposed by the Government and recommended by the Trusteeship Council might be best carried out. Progress was disappointing. A series of meetings were held between August and October by the Acting Commissioner of the Cameroons with representatives of the Bakweri Improvement Union and the Cameroons National Federation. Representatives of the Cameroons Development Corporation were also present. At all the meetings the Bakweri representatives stated that they were dissatisfied with that part of the Trusteeship Council’s resolution which recommends that increased efforts should be made to explain to the Bakweri that the Ex-enemy lands have, ‘in fact, reverted to the people of the Trust Territory, and that ownership is now legally vested in them’. 494. The Bakweri representatives were at first united in considering that the Government should have stated categorically that those of the Ex-enemy Lands, which they had previously occupied, had reverted to the, the Bakweri, that ownership was legally vested in them and that the Trusteeship Council’s resolution should have reflected this position. Finally the majority of the representatives stated that they were not prepared to co-operate with the Government in schemes for controlled land settlement unless and until they have received a reply to their land petition which was satisfactory to them. 495. The Bakweri Land Committee have persisted in their non-co-operative attitude, in spite of explanations given to them by the Acting Governor in November-December, 1950, and by other Government officers during 1951 on the lines recommended by the Trusteeship Council. The Committee petitioned the Trusteeship Council unsuccessfully at its Ninth session and has been informed that the Nigerian Government has nothing to add to the comments of the Council at its Sixth and Ninth Sessions. 496. Since it is obviously undesirable to hold up any longer a resettlement scheme designed for the benefit of a considerable area round the Cameroons Mountain on account of the Land Committee’s recalcitrance, the Government now proposes to proceed with the resettlement scheme commended by the Trusteeship Council, in consultation with all the communities of the Limbe and Kumba Divisions who desire to take advantage of it. These communities include the more progressive of the Bakweri organizations, such as the Bakweri Farmers Union.” **************** The substantive point to be retained from the above resolution is that following the 1946 CDC ordinance, the UN Trusteeship Council passed a resolution endorsing the creation of the CDC including the provision that “more than 250,000 acres of land formerly alienated have been declared to be native lands and are being developed for the common benefit of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory by the Cameroons Development Corporation”

26

The second important point to be retained is that the UN Trusteeship Council recommended that that "special attention should be given to the rehabilitation of the Bakweri by means of special contributions from the Corporation’s earnings." The question here is, was this ever done by the various managers of the CDC, and if not why not? It is quite clear from the above that the memorandum, signed by 350 Fako natives, that was submitted to President Paul Biya back in March 1999 by the Bakweri Land claims Committee is a continuation of the 1946 petition which was the subject of the March 1950 Trusteeship Council resolution. In spite of the UN resolution the matter has never been considered by the Bakwere Lands Committee as settled because they rejected the provision of the 1950 resolution which said that “increased efforts should be made to explain to the Bakweri that the ex-enemy lands have in fact reverted to the people of the Trust Territory and that ownership is now legally vested in them” First of all let me say that I think that the Bakwere Land Committee have a legitimate case based on the simple fact that most of CDC land are Bakwere land. It is an incontestable fact that the lands were expropriated from them by the Germans to set up plantations. Hence the claim for compensation by the Bakwere Lands Committee remains valid as long as such compensation has not been paid. But as any good lawyer will tell you, you can have a perfectly good case and still lose in court on issues of tactics, strategy and procedures. I personally do not believe that the Bakwere Land Committee has been playing its cards well. The mistake which they have made so far has been to use the claims for compensation to treat the privatization of the CDC as though it was a matter which concerns them and no other group in Cameroon. They became not only possessive, but exclusively possessive with the CDC as though other groups do not have equally legitimate claims on the CDC. In so doing they alienated the rest of the country whose support is actually needed to make their claims stick. Take the issue of the ownership of the CDC. The UN Trusteeship Council resolution of March 1950 is very clear in its language that the CDC is the common property to the people of the UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. This means that the common ownership of the CDC by the people of the Southern Cameroons has been enshrined in international law since 1950. The implication of this resolution is that the Government in Yaounde, strictly speaking, has nothing to say regarding the privatization of the CDC because it is a matter concerning the people of the former UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. At no stage in the reunification process, did the ownership of this vast agro-industrial complex ever transfer to the government in Yaounde, nor did it ever become the common property of the whole of Cameroon, as we know it today. Therefore, according to international law, the only people who have say in the privatization of the CDC are the people of Southern Cameroons or their chosen representatives. The problem is that according to the 1951 report of the United Kingdom to the UN General Assembly, the Bakwere Land Committee has never accepted the principle that the CDC is the common property of the people of Southern Cameroons because over the years, the land and the company have come to signify one and the same thing to the Bakwere Lands Committee. This is where the problem lies. I believe that acceptance of the common ownership of the CDC is neither incompatible with the compensation claims of the Bakwere Land Committee, nor does it does it in any way prevent the

27

claims from being enforceable. I believe that if the Bakwere Lands Committee accepts the text of the UN resolution on the common ownership of the CDC, the immediate effect is that it will strengthen their position because it will immediately bring in the support of the rest of the people of Southern Cameroons behind them. Secondly if one can accept for the sake of argument that the government in Yaounde has a role to play, it must be only that of a trustee and nothing more. That means that the proceeds of the sale of the CDC cannot be swallowed into the public treasury in Yaounde as it was done in the case of Hevecam or Socapalm. A trustee cannot sell off assets held in trust for a group which was clearly defined by international law and then use the proceeds of the sale to benefit people outside of that defined group. In keeping with the Trusteeship Council resolution of 1950, the proceeds must be used for the common benefit of, and exclusively of, the people of the former UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. My suggestion to the Bakwere Land Committee is that they should spearhead the convening of a joint conference of the Northwest and South west Fons to be enlarged to include all MPs from the Northwest and Southwest to discuss the implications for the privatization of the CDC of the UN Trusteeship Council resolution of March 1950 and to take a common stand on: (1) Bakwere Land Committee compensation claims; (2) Use of the proceeds of the sale of the CDC. I for my part shall seep very well if the proceeds are used to construct the road from Bota to Bamenda through Kumba and Mamfe and then the Ring Road through Kumbo, Nkambe and Wum. This is the only project which will demonstrate in a very real way that the CDC existed as the common property of the people of the Southern Cameroons. Everybody believes that the Bakwere Land Committee has had problems dealing with the issue of the privatization of the CDC because their son, Peter Mafany Musonge is the Prime Minister. Conventional wisdom also has it that his tenure as Prime Minister will last until the CDC is privatized because that is one of the principal reasons why he was appointed PM. The Bakwere Land Committee has been caught between a rock and a hard place of trying to find a strong stance to take on the CDC privatization, which will not hurt the PM. This is all understandable. However, if the approach of using a joint conference of Northwest and Southwest Chiefs and MPs is used to hammer out a common position consistent with the international law as stated in the 1950 UN Trusteeship Council resolution, then the Prime Minister stands a far better chance of emerging as a hero rather than a villain when he finally signs the deal selling off the CDC. This is a call to Fons and Deputies from the Northwest and Southwest to stand up for once, without regard to political affiliation, and protect our rights and our common heritage. Regards NN Susungi

28

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:10:35 -0400 From: James <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Bawkwere Land CommitteeComments: To: Nfor N Susungi <[email protected]> Dear Dr. Susungi, I'm no expert on land issues/problems or the plight of the Bakweri people per se. However, I think the land morally (even legally) belongs to them. you wrote: Therefore, according to international law, the only people who have say in the privatization of the CDC are the people of Southern Cameroons or their chosen representatives. Such a statement is quite troubling to me putting it mildly. The good thing is that, it is your interpretation of the text. If you however revisit what you posted, appended here: "4. Further recommends that: increased efforts should be made to explain to the Bakweri that the ex-enemy lands have in fact reverted to the people of the Trust Territory and that ownership is now legally vested in them;" you would realise that the UN .... was mentioning strictly Bakweri people. I am sure they knew enough to know that other tribes existed in the region in question: (Southern Cameroons and now Republic of Cameroon). Your statement in my opinion is a thinly veiled assault on people's rights and property, and smacks of the worst forms of opportunism by politicians. You should be very ashamed of yourself. Southern Cameroons (SC) has no say in the matter. For starters the entity SC doesn't even exist. Secondly, if you are not Bakweri, hand off their property. I think we should all join and support the Bakweri people in this time of need rather than using vivid imaginations to incorporate ourselves unto other people's property. This would only be a recipe for trouble and while we argue about legal machinations, we should (as a society) think of its moral implications. Lest you want to give others the opportunity to view your above statements as Graffi encroaching on Bakweri property. A few on Camnet will have a field day with this one. Jimmy K Please note: I am not Bakweri and have no personal gain to the best of my knowledge from the outcome of this matter.

29



Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:01:10 +0100 From: Nfor N Susungi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Bawkwere Land Committee Mr. James K. I was born in Tabenken, Donga & Mantung Division formerly known as Nkambe Division. As such I am a subject of the former United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. This makes me a beneficiary of the trust, which was set up in 1946 under the auspices of the UN Trusteeship Council called the CDC. Thousands of our people work not only in the CDC but also in other plantations such as Socapalm, Hevecam and Ferme Suisse. My interest in the Bakwere Land Committee case is the following: If the CDC is to be privatized, the owners of the land on which the CDC estates are located should be appropriately compensated from the time that the land was expropriated from them. On this I back the Bakwere people 100%. Arrangements should also be made to compensate them in the future by whomsoever takes over the CDC. My second interest is that citizens of the territory that was formerly known as "Southern Cameroons" are, according to the resolution of UN Trusteeship Council of March 1950, the rightful and only legitimate beneficiaries of the trust called the CDC. Therefore the proceeds of the sale should go to benefit them. I have stated who I am, where I am from and what is my interest in the Bakwere Land Committee claim. It would be very helpful in this discussion if we all proceed by saying who we are and what is our interest in the case. Regards NN Susungi

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:08:27 GMT From: Jude Eze Okafor <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Bawkwere Land CommitteeComments: To: [email protected] Hello Dr. Susungi, It is a wonderful diplo-political real estate history. I believe most of us who are the last batch of the Baby Boom generation and the Beatles cry baby would love it. However though, there are some "contentions" generally expressed as technicalities in law as regard your piece. I agree with you that there is no status of limitation on private property. And there is no doubt that the CDC plantation land belong to the Bakweri people, that is capiert. The Bakweri people has the legitimate right to fight for something that belong to them irrespective of whether their son peddles power. Ye'es Southern Cameroon was geographically the zone in which the CDC is located no doubt about that. In this case CDC belong to the people of Southern Cameroon if at the time CDC was a public liability company, and Southern Cameroon a sovereign state.

30



To my knowledge, the Republic of Cameroon has treated CDC as a public liability Company. It is the government of Cameroon that appoints heads in CDC. My argument is that I think Cameroon government as the owner of CDC, has some legitimate say in CDC to either privatize it or not to privatize it. Not the Bakweri people, nor the geographically placed Southern Cameroon people. However, what I am made to understand is that the Bakweri people is not fighting to stop the Cameroon government from privatizing CDC because CDC is not a private company owned by the Bakweri people. What I understand the Bakweri people are fighting for is compensation for the use of their land, and for the government of Cameroon to meet certain requirements pertaining private property ownership before going private. I think the Bakweri people are smart enough to bring this issue now before what used to be public company goes private. If, in my believe, the Bakweri don't seek the legitimate compensation due them now, they will lose everything because at some point, the government of the Republic of Cameroon will want to exercise the power of eminent domain irrespective of the all the UN corncharf agreements. Another thing is that the Cameroon government recognizes the line items in all the agreements between CDC, the UN and the government of Cameroon. And in that regard, allow the Bakweri people to make their case for compensation before CDC's status changes from public domain to private enterprise. The sucker in your posting is about the Southern Cameroon, and the bringing in of Fons from the Northwest to come arbiter in a private property issue in Fako that does not belong to them and to do that under the auspices of them being Southern Cameroon. Whereas your definition of Southern Cameroon in this case means a sovereign state either now or before. I personally don't think that that part of your position entangles well with logic and common sense. Whereas Southern Cameroon was never a sovereign state, and whereas the SW chiefs including the Bakweri chiefs and their subject have rebuffed any attempt to make Southern Cameroon a sovereign state, there is just no legitimate concern invoking the Southern Cameroon and its subjects to come arbiter in an issue that involve a sovereign state in this case the Rep. of Cameroon and its people define here as Bakwerian. The Bakweri people never said hey Cameroon government you do not have the right to privatize CDC. But I know they shouted hey you cannot privatize CDC without looking into the agreements pertaining land lease and the issue of compensation and gratuities. Secondly, we can not let you privatize CDC without we (Bakwerian) knowing exactly what is up with the more 250,000 acres of Bakweri land. Good case. So the case now is between the Republic of Cameroon and the Bakweri tribe. Whereas it is legal for Yaounde to exercise the power of eminent domain, they are also willing to respect the clauses in the Land Use Act and the Private Property Law which require it to pay value compensation and gratuity for private property deemed necessary for public use, and to make such compensation without prejudice. So far the Republic of Cameroon has agreed through the various laws to buy its right-of-way durch any private property. The bakweri people are on the right track. They are pursuing something legitimately due them. They started it, and let them do it themselves. I think they have the legal and intellectual arbiters to pursue the case to the end without external added catchops.

31

I think the Northwest Fons has the Ndu Tea estate question to arbiter if and only if it has the same legal composition like the Bakweris. If you are to call in the Fons, then it will also require calling the Nigeria to be part of the whole show. Who is ready for that now? The bottom line and or the common sense understanding of your posting which has so much legal/intellectual credence, is to create a frenzy within English speaking Cameroonian that Bakweri people pursuing the case alone portrays their greed, and disenfranchisement from the rest of their English speaking NW brothers. I don't think such assumption is correct. Bakweri people the case is yours whatever comes out of it, enjoy it. Is your day. My only knack on the land issue is that Bakweri should take advantage of the legal ramifications to secure prosperity for the next generation Bakwerrians just like the original signatories of agreements did. They should not let loose the government on this one. It is a legitimate case less its politicization. Bakweri people should understand while concluding any settlement with government brokers and the intending/potential buyer of CDC properties that the next generation bakwerian are very important and are the ones to gain from their decision. Secondly, they should understand that more land must be secured for the new sprawling and surging population in the Fako division. I can imagine my Muea Town in the next 20 years when all the bush fallers of today retire home to become lamberfallers. We are not going to stay outside. We will all need land to build and farm. So far, I cannot sacrifice my inherited land in Mwuanga, Bitingi, Muea Down and Ebili Village.... no way. End message: Bakweri Land Committee more grease and arbiter the best deal. You must also bear in mind that our long-term problem is not going to be surplus food. Rather it is going to be surplus farmers. So therefore we will need more land to cultivate. Jude Eze Okafor

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:50:55 -0500 From: SIMON TANDE <[email protected]>Organization: Microsoft Corporation Subject: Nfor Susungi Got It All Wrong!!! On 8/26/99 Nfor N Susungi wrote: > > I personally do not believe that the Bakwere Land Committee has been playing its > cards well. The mistake which they have made so far has been to use the claims > for compensation to treat the privatization of the CDC as though it was a matter > which concerns them and no other group in Cameroon. They became not only > possessive, but exclusively possessive with the CDC as though other groups do > not have equally legitimate claims on the CDC. In so doing they alienated the > rest of the country whose support is actually needed to make their claims stick. In the above paragraph, Dr. Susungi makes some rather sweeping claims that don't tie in with reality at all. Having closely monitored the activities of the Bakweri Land Committee since the announcement of the planned privatization of the CDC, I can confidently assert that at no time

32


has the Land Committee claimed that the privatization of the CDC concerned no one other than the Bakweri. On the contrary, the Committee has gone to great lengths to make a clear distinction between the Lands on which the CDC plantations are found (which the Bakweri own exclusively), and the CDC itself, a national corporation initially created to cater for the socio-economic development of the citizens of the then British Southern Cameroons. How can Dr. Susungi honestly claim that the Bakweri Land Committee has now alienated other segments of the Cameroonian population that could have been of help in the struggle for the restoration of their ancestral rights? Can the Dr. Susungi explain how he arrived at this conclusion? Is there a secret BLC memo that the public is not aware of, but to which he is privy? A more objective reading of the Cameroonian scene seems to indicate that the indifference of the Cameroonian public towards Bakweri demands for land restitution/compensation is primarily due to ignorance, and not to a disavowal of alleged ethnocentric actions of the Bakweri Land Committee When the privatization of the CDC was first announced back in 1994 , the Bakweri Land Committee published a very elaborate memorandum that dealt extensively with the issues that Dr. Susungi raises above. In that document, and all subsequent releases from the BLC, the Bakweri clearly laid claim to the LANDS currently being used by the CDC, while explicitly acknowledging that the fate of the CDC itself concerned all Cameroonians, particularly Anglophone Cameroonians. The excerpt below culled from the 1994 memo will clearly prove that Dr.Susungi got it all wrong.(Hopefully, the Bakweri Land Committee will also publish the entire 1994 memorandum on the Internet..).

MEMORANDUM OF THE BAKWERI PEOPLE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE TO PRIVATISE OR SELL THE CAMEROON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

[An Excerpt] (July 27, 1994) ... It should be recalled that when the Bakweri dropped their long-standing land claims and gave their consent to the creation of the CDC, it was with the express understanding that while the lands would be DEVELOPED FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT OF ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING CAMEROONIANS, the ground rents the corporation agreed to pay to Government would be used for the exclusive benefit of the Bakweri landowners. In its almost 50 years of operation the CDC has lived up to this mandate, developing the rich natural resources of Fako Division on a scale unprecedented in our nation's history. As we have already indicated, it is a matter of public record that the corporation set aside annually an amount it paid into the public treasury as ground rents though precious little ever reached the Bakweri! .... The point bears repeating that in creating the CDC the colonial administration sought to strike a careful balance between two competing interests: on one hand, to protect the interests of the Bakweri in their lands while, on the other, ensuring that these lands can be properly and efficiently managed for the common good of all. It is clear to us that the proposed scheme to privatise the CDC conflicts with the original and enduring policy rationale for its establishment in the first place. Implementing this proposal would amount to a betrayal by Government of the

33

undertakings it made to the community of nations at the time of independence. Moreover, allowing the CDC to be taken over by third parties would signal the abdication of the fiduciary duty Government OWES TO THE BAKWERI PEOPLE IN PARTICULAR AND ALL CAMEROONIANS IN GENERAL. --- However, in the case of a public institution such as the CDC, the calculation of best interests goes beyond merely getting the best price for the corporation's stock. Government as the fiduciary, by virtue of its majority interests, HAS A CLEAR DUTY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF A SALE-- short-term and long range, material as well as psychological-- ON CDC EMPLOYEES, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THE CORPORATION MAINTAINS A PRESENCE. Above all, the interests of the Bakweri people without whose lands there would have been no CDC in the first place must forever remain paramount. ... ************************************************************************ It is obvious from the above excerpts that while giving prime importance to the reacquisition of its lost ancestral lands, the Bakweri Land Committee has emphatically placed the planned privatization of the CDC within a broader national context. I fail to see how this laudable approach can be the source of the alleged national alienation that Dr. Susungi talks about... Dibussi Tande

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:06:50 -0400 From: Steve Andoseh <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Nfor Susungi Got It All Wrong!!! I am indebted to Dr. Susungi, Dibussi, and the Bakweri Land Committee for the refresher course in some aspects of our history. I have learned considerably about some of the political dynamics of colonial times. I am especially impressed with the high level of organization, discipline, commitment, and integrity of the Bakweri Land Co. specifically and the Bakweri people generally. I think Dr. Susungi's contribution is excellent in laying the historical foundations of the claims of the Bakweri, and in justifying the claims of the people of the former trust territory of Southern Cameroon. Unfortunately, some of his conclusions introduces some of today's political angst and acrimonies as well as whimsical speculations into the discussion; and God knows we could use a break from our collective social malaise occasionally. I was far from expecting, from the tone of his contribution, that somehow the conventional wisdom - unfounded as these things invariably are - that Musonge is PM merely to serve as a guinea pig for the CDC privatization was to conclude Dr. Susungi's piece. I have to agree, while I am at it, that Dibussi is absolutely correct in asserting that there is no evidence in the published pronouncements of the BLC of any intention of appropriating CDC for the Bakweri exclusively. Though often, in the public parlance, the distinction between CDC and CDC lands are blurred, responsibility for that cannot be placed on the BLC, and one is led to

34


suspect, given the fertile speculation on Musonge, that Dr. Susungi mixes hard facts with the wisdom of the street rather freely. It is bad enough that - even in the absence of such obfuscating interests as we are often plagued with - the Cameroon public is usually not sufficiently informed on issues of such moment to be appropriately guided on where its interests lie. We owe each other the duty to be objective and sincere with facts. Those who have access to the facts ought to feel an obligation of transmitting them with fidelity. We have already become a nation of multiple histories because 'history' is being determined by current political conveniences. On the issue at hand it appears rather obvious to me that the struggle of the Bakweri for recuperation of title to their land should perforce gain our unequivocal support, at least on the basis of principle, but more concretely on the fact that every society in Cameroon has seen its lands expropriated by some governmental authority. Placed in a larger context the lands along the proposed Chad-Kribi pipeline, oil fields, and lands with mineral deposits, etc. have all been arbitrarily annexed without adequate compensation. There are sad stories of exploitation to tell all over the land. And the CDC is also present in Ndu and other places out of Fako. To nurse any feeling that we must wait on an invitation from the Bakweri or some appropriate decorum on their part in seeking their rights, is to be counter productive. In the past the colonials used to divide us; now we do it expertly all by our lovely selves! Steve.

From: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 11:19 AM Subject: [Re: Rejoinder to Susungi's Article I wish to thank Mr. Susungi for his valuable contribution in terms of the 1950 U.N. Resolution. I however think there is a big gap between a U.N. Resolution which a country or trust territory may apply with reservations (which was the case of the BLCC) and International law which again a people may chose to enter their reservations with regard to aspects of that international law which run contrary to their primary interests. Having said this l want also to indicate, unless this was an oversight, that the social plan that would placate Mr. Susungi excludes Buea and rather concentrates in the North West which to me highly compromises and significantly overshadows some genuine concerns he may have raised. The one thing that the 1950 U.N. resolution demonstrates clearly is that the Bakweri spearheaded by the BLCC, have been very consistent with their claims. The 1950 U.N resolution seems in my opinion to have fallen way short of the 1991 and 1992 resolutions of the very United Nations regarding the Rights of Indigenous Minorities. So the loopholes of the 1950 resolution may yet stand to be corrected in light of path breaking precedence in international Law with regard to the American Indians, Canadian Aborigines etc. International law cannot hold the Bakweri of Cameroon to different standards. Without wishing to unduly politicise the affair, l asked myself two important questions after reading the correspondence of Mr. Susungi: (1). If as stated clearly the then Southern Cameroonians had a visited interest in the CDC, why should they wait for the Bakweri to Convene a meeting before they Publicly make Known their

35

sentiments regarding the privatisation of the CDC which expands to LOBE AND OTHER PLACES LIKE NDU? Shouldn’t the indigenes of these places be a natural ally of the BLCC? (2) Why is it that when a man is successful his successes are national acclaimed but when it comes to a hard patch then regionalism and tribalism take over? Doesn’t the nation owe something in recognition of its sons and daughters who have manifested a genuine interest in national progress through unbiased service to the nation? If the Prime Ministers tenure should end with the Privitisation of the CDC, has anyone thought of how many other people will lose their jobs with privatization of the CDC who are overwhelmingly not Bakweri? Privatization or not the Bakweri land claim and related elements will always be legitimate, but the social implications of privatization are inherently national. So our brothers, if they feel involved, as they rightly should from a national perspective, should be more spontaneous about that involvement. Elsie Effange -Mbella.

From: Nfor N Susungi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 1:00 AM To: [email protected]; Bakweri Land Committee Subject: [scncforum] Re: Nfor Susungi Got It All Wrong!! Well Simon Tande, I hope that I have it all wrong as you put it. At the end of the day, I am not interested in winning an argument. I am interested in the same thing as you: namely the rights of the owners of the land on which the CDC estates are located. The lands are in Fako, Meme, Menoua as well as in Donga & Mantung where I come from. I take note of the 1994 memorandum which you have made available to us on the net. Rest assured that I have no secret document which demonstrates that the Bakwere Land Committee has alienated other segments of the Cameroonian population that could have been of help in the struggle for the restoration of their ancestral rights. The problem has been one of general perception that the CDC privatization consultations have primarily centered around the Bakwere people. There was a government delegation which went to Ndu to explain the privatization to the Ndu people. Beyond that no other groups in the former UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons were deemed to be interested. I admit on the basis of your posting that this may be part of a deliberate strategy of government rather than that of the BLC. For what it is worth what I am saying is that the BLC should seek strength in numbers by exploiting the 1950 resolution of the UN Trusteeship Council to rally the beneficiaries of the CDC trust not only around the compensation claims of the BLC but also for the end use of the proceeds of the sale of the CDC. Unless this is done, the PM will sign off the sale of the CDC sooner or later without having dealt with the land claims and the proceeds will be swallowed up by Yaounde as was done with the funds of the Produce Marketing Board and we shall all be crying foul from here to eternity. Following the privatization of Socapalm, the SAWA People and the BASSA people on whose land the estates are located have been crying foul. But it is too late. NN Susungi

36

CHAPTER FOUR: THE 1951 “BAKWERI PROBLEM” REPORT PRESENTED TO THE UN TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL IN 1951 BY THE

BRITISH GOVERNMENT From: Isaac Endeley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 4:56 PM Subject: Bakweri Problem I would like to share with you a document drawn from the archives of the United Nations. It was part of the 1951 Report of the British Government on the Administration of the Southern Cameroons, presented to the UN Trusteeship Council in 1952. The following is a complete reproduction of the relevant paragraphs, without comment or opinion. Isaac Njoh Endeley ========================================================================

"THE BAKWERI PROBLEM"

485. The Bakweri people and related clans living on the Western, Eastern and Southern slopes of the Cameroons Mountain present a social problem. They are poor farmers and compare unfavourably in this respect with the stranger natives who have entered the area and whose presence they resent. They suffer from some shortage of farm land near roads but they have so far failed to take advantage of the offer of further lands (see paragraph 491 below) which would remedy this shortage. The Trusteeship Council at its Ninth Session, repeated the wish expressed at its Sixth Session that the Bakweri would accept the resettlement scheme offered to them. A considerable number of the Bakweri work on the plantations but their labour compares unfavourably with that of the Bamenda people from further north; they usually prefer to content themselves with a standard task even if this can be completed in three or four hours rather than to earn a bonus at increased wage rates for completing a full day's work. 486. As in 1950 their native authorities had little positive achievement to their credit during the year, and continued to bedevil their work, to the annoyance of the more progressive elements in the area, by refusing opportunities for progress and development until such a time as the Administering Authority might accept the claim set out in the Bakweri Land Committee petitions discussed at the Sixth and Ninth Sessions of the Trusteeship Council. The essence of that claim, which neither the Administering Authority nor the Trusteeship Council has accepted, is that the lands leased to the Cameroons Development Corporation and operated in the interests of the entire population of the Territory shall be recognized as belonging to them, the Bakweri. 487. Since some readers of this report will not be familiar with the background of the Bakweri question, the immediately following paragraphs reproduce the substance of paragraphs 309-312 of the 1949 Report, showing what measures were taken by the Administering Authority in 1948-49. This is followed by the resolution on the Bakweri passed at the Sixth Session of the Trusteeship Council in 1950 and by an account of the measures regarding the Bakweri taken in 1950 and 1951 which were designed to put the resolution into effect.

37

488. During the debates of 1946 in the Nigeria Legislative Council on the Ordinance setting up the Cameroons Development Corporation an undertaking was given by the Nigerian Government to conduct an investigation into allegations that the peoples of the Cameroons residing in and around the plantations were short of land and that if such investigations showed that farming land was insufficient to meet genuine needs, the native reserves around villages would be increased where it was considered necessary. A report by a new administrative officer of his investigation into the existing situation, received late in 1948, showed that an indigenous population of 15,062 was living in native lands in the vicinity of the plantations. The number of households based on the number of adult males was estimated at 4,987. Living among these indigenous inhabitants were immigrants to the number of 9,515, of whom 4,896 were adult males. These immigrants were in addition to the Cameroons Development Corporation labour force (some 16,000 men at the time) who were domiciled on the Corporation's estates. In the report it was estimated that to provide each indigenous household with a holding of 15 acres a further 25,000 acres would have to be released by the plantations. The report made by this officer included recommendations for the development of social welfare in the area of the plantations, the encouragement of labourers employed in the area of the plantations by the Corporation to bring their women with them, and control of immigration into and settlement of strangers in the area. 489. A summary of the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Officer appointed by the Nigerian Government and the preliminary observations of the Nigerian Government was published in pamphlet form during the last quarter of the year, and reproduced in Attachment I of the 1949 Cameroons Report. Copies of this pamphlet were made available to members of the Visiting Mission before their discussions with the Bakweri Land Committee which the Mission held as a result of the petitions on the subject received by the Trusteeship Council from the Committee. 490. The main recommendations made by the Investigating Officer were as follows:

(i) A social welfare unit to be established in the Victoria division. (ii) Action to be taken to encourage an increase in the number of women resident

in the Victoria division, especially on the plantations. (iii) Immigration and settlement of strangers to be controlled. (iv) A lands office and full facilities for granting and regularising leases to be set

up in the Victoria division. (v) An agricultural officer to be settled permanently in the Victoria division. (vi) A co-operative officer to be settled permanently in the Victoria division. (vii) A medical officer to be especially appointed to investigate medical and

sanitary conditions in the Victoria division and to give instructions on diet and other matters.

(viii) Pollution of water supplies to be forbidden by law. (ix) A forestry reserve programme to be worked out in detail. (x) Improvement and rearing of livestock to receive attention and mules to be

introduced to aid local transport. (xi) Cattle to be encouraged. (xii) Reserves to be increased in size according to acreages required providing

action has been or is being concurrently taken to ensure: (a) safeguarding of the future of local women; (b) control of immigration and settlement of strangers; (c) establishment of a Land Registry and a satisfactory system of leases (d) instruction and supervision in improved agricultural methods.

38

491. The Nigerian Government considered that, while these recommendations were useful, they were not drastic enough and therefore proposed:

(a) that further lands for use by the indigenous inhabitants be excised from the plantation areas now leased to the Cameroons Development Corporation.

(b) that such land be offered in 15-acre plots for cultivation, mainly for food crops, on controlled tenancy terms; technical assistance, social welfare services and a guaranteed market for approved crops being provided by the Corporation.

491. That was the position when the Bakweri question came up for discussion at the Sixth Meeting of the Council in March 1950. The Council gave full consideration to the question and passed the following resolution: "Bakweri land problem. The Council notes with approval that by virtue of the Ex-Enemy Lands (Cameroons) Ordinance, 1946, and the Cameroon Development Corporation Ordinance, 1946, more than 250,000 acres of land formerly alienated have been declared to be native lands and are being developed for the common benefit of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory by the Cameroons Development Corporation; endorses the view of the Visiting Mission that the standards of sanitation, housing, health, nutrition and general moral well-being of the Bakweri are at such a level that they must be the subject immediately of active and positive assistance on the part of the Administration or the Cameroons Development Corporation or both; Commends the plans of the Administering Authority and the Cameroons Development Corporation for the solution of the problems of the Bakweri and other peoples living in the neighbourhood by means of a policy of controlled and assisted resettlement on land with an ultimate extent of 25,000 acres to be excised from those now leased to the Corporation, and expresses the hope that the people concerned will co-operate fully with the Administration and the Corporation in the implementation of these plans; endorses the conclusions and recommendations of its Visiting Mission on the Bakweri problem and, while noting the steps already being taken by the Administering Authority in this connexion, further recommends: that increased efforts should be made to explain to the Bakweri that the ex-enemy lands have in fact reverted to the people of the Trust Territory and that ownership is now legally vested in them; that increased emphasis should be given to the adequate training of the indigenous inhabitants to enable them to participate increasingly in the affairs of the Corporation; that a constant programme of public relations be developed to demonstrate to the people the extent to which the operations of the Corporation are of real benefit to them; that special attention should be given to the rehabilitation of the Bakweri by means of special contributions from the Corporation's earnings; that the Administration's policy of controlled and assisted resettlement should be put into effect as quickly as possible, and should be extended whenever appropriate to all people living in the neighbourhood of the plantations or in other areas where similar conditions exist." 493. A team of experts assembled at Buea later in 1950 to decide in co-operation with the Bakweri people how the resettlement programme proposed by the Government and commended by the Trusteeship Council might be best carried out. Progress was disappointing. A series of meetings were held between August and October by the Acting Commissioner of the Cameroons with representatives of the Bakweri Native Authority, the Bakweri Land Committee, the Bakweri Improvement Union and the Cameroons National Federation. Representatives of the Cameroons Development Corporation were also present. At all the meetings the Bakweri representatives stated that they were dissatisfied with that part of the Trusteeship Council's resolution which recommends that increased effort should be made to

39

explain to the Bakweri people that Ex-Enemy Lands have, "in fact, reverted to the people of the Trust Territory, and that ownership is now legally vested in them". 494. The Bakweri representatives were at first united in considering that the Government should have stated categorically that those of the Ex-Enemy Lands, which they had previously occupied, had reverted to them, that ownership was legally vested in them and that the Trusteeship Council's resolution should have reflected this position. Finally the majority of the representatives stated that they were not prepared to co-operate with the Government in schemes for controlled land settlement unless and until they had received a reply to their land petition which was satisfactory to them. 495. The Bakweri Land Committee have persisted in their non-co-operative attitude, in spite of explanations given to them by the Acting Governor in November-December, 1950, and by other Government officers during 1951 on the lines recommended by the Trusteeship Council. The Committee petitioned the Trusteeship Council unsuccessfully at its Ninth Session and has been informed that the Nigerian Government has nothing to add to the comments of the Council at its Sixth and Ninth Sessions. 496. Since it is obviously undesirable to hold up any longer a resettlement scheme designed for the benefit of a considerable area around the Cameroons Mountain on account of the Land Committee's recalcitrance, the Government now proposes to proceed with the resettlement scheme commended by the Trusteeship Council, in consultation with all the communities in the Victoria and Kumba Divisions who desire to take advantage of it. These communities include the more progressive of the Bakweri organisations, such as the Bakweri Farmers Union. 497. THE MAN O'WAR BAY SCHEME. A number of places in the courses for training leaders in community development at Man o'War Bay, near Victoria, have been reserved for Bakweri. The origin of the Man o'War Bay scheme was described in paragraph 480 of the 1950 Report. It was started in 1950 with the Commissioner's approval by two officers posted to the Cameroons to assist in carrying out the resettlement project described above and is modelled on the "Outward Bound" Trust Schools in the United Kingdom. The Trusteeship Council at its Ninth Session commended the scheme, asked for information on its results and whether other similar training centres would be established. It will be appreciated that it is too early yet to say whether the results justify the creation of other such centres, but a good start has been made. 498. Two courses were held at Man o'War Bay during the year and they provided valuable lessons for the future of this experiment in broad education and the teaching of Community Development techniques. Those who attended the course came from all over the Southern Cameroons and the Eastern Region of Nigeria. Early in 1952 a party of Northern Region leaders also visited Man o'War and took part in a course. The activities include strenuous exercise such as swimming, mountain climbing and other activities designed to foster a spirit of adventure together with community development projects of use to neighbouring villages.

40

CHAPTER FIVE: DID THE GERMANS LEGITIMATELY PURCHASE BAKWERI LANDS?

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:30:31 EDT From: Jovita Nsoh <[email protected]>Subject: Bakweri Land Issue: Background Before you guys continue with the discussion on the Bakweri Land Problem, let's take some time to get a background hint, straight from the Colonial Section of the German National Library here in Berlin: The first two agreements point out how the Buea People "lost" their lands: Buea File IV B 34j, Vol.2. Created on 11.1.1911 and closed 11.8.1911, it contains a compilation of the following agreements, together with the following correspondence: 1. The Agreement of 18. February 1887: [The text which follows was handwritten in ink, totally in English, with the spellings as herein printed] Mapanja, 18th Feb., 1887 Yours Excellency! Yesterday I succeeded in buying whole Bwea for you. As the trade within Victoria and the mountain towns since long time is cut off by the fight within Bojongo and Bosumbo I got it to good price. I could not get all the kings an chiefs together at one time because the Upper and Lower Buea are enemies and must therefore make two contracts. The prices on the contracts are after the account of the people-not the prices of the factories. The Bwea people will come to Mapanja and receive the payment. If you send the payment to Bokundabge I will forward it to Mapanja and pay the people there. At the enclosed note you will found the goods which are to be send. The people want that kind capsgun Mr Allen sell in Cameroons. It will need about ten carriers to take the goods to Mapanja. Yesterday a black trader Edgeley(Emdeli) and a man from Victoria sold Snider in Bwea for cows what, I believe, not is allowed. With kind regards to you and Mr Von Puttkamer. I remain Yours Respectfully George Valdau. 2. The Agreement of 4 March 1887. ( Text in German, in ink over pencil, except for headings as shown)

41



Kaiserlicher Gouverneur Von Kamerun Kamerun (Printed and crossed out) Beua den 4 Marz 1887 (ink over pencil) "Die unterzeihnetenhauptlinge von Buea bescheinigen"…Sorry, let me just go ahead and write my English translation Imperial Governor of Kamerun Buea, 4 March. 1887 The undersigned chiefs of Buea certify herewith that they have received from the imperial Governor Herr Von Soden the contracted purchase price for the whole land in Buea (Upper, Middle, and Lower) in so far as it is not cultivated or built on by them. The Buea people confer upon the Imp. Governor, or his successors in Law, an UNRESTRICTED PRIOR RIGHT OF PURCHASE TO THE LAND which is at present cultivated and built on by them, that is: they will not sell this land to third persons without prior notification to the Governor. No land contract concluded shall be valid without the foreknowledge of the present purchaser or his successors in law. The following was translated for the undersigned chiefs by the interpreter Sam Stien Sic] and it was expressly stated by all present that they had understood, and they gave their complete consent to the agreement. The first chief of Buea, Kuba, expressly declares that he takes responsibility on behalf of those of his sub-chiefs who have not appeared today and have not signed, and will see it that they receive their share of the price." From the above agreements, we are made to believe that the Bwea people sold their land a long time ago. From here the pencilled text is in English with German written on it in ink. The English follows: Handzeichen Meaning Signature) King Epa X His Mark Hauptling (His Highness) Chief Mosissa Chief Manga Chief Ngondo King Letongo Chief Mollue Chief Ndelli Chief Metumba Chief Njaki Chief Ewokise Written over in German in ink: " Die unterzeichen der vorstehenden Hauptlinge und Unterhauptlinge werden hiermit durch die Dolmetscher und die Zeugen beglaubigt" *********************

42

These treaties gave the two major German firms: Woermann and Jantzen und Thormahlen, plantations to come into Bimbia ( Kamerun Land- und Plantagen Gesellschaft) and Bibundi ( West Afrikanishe Planzungsgesellschaft Bibundi (WAPV). It should be pointed out that the WAPV which obtained a lot of concessions and became the most important plantation was later renamed the CDC under the Southern Cameroons. The outcry by some Camnetters seems to be because we do not really know what happened to those plantations after the Germans left and the English came in. Here is a brief narrative. After the Germans lost the war. The majority of the plantations were bought back into German hands at the second auction in 1922 and 1924. Soon plantation managers exercising their rights under their land titles claimed that in many areas Bakweri farms and villages formed the encroachments on their concessions. The Nigerian Government opposed any measures to remove these settlements, and a report of one of it's officers pointed out that to compel their return within the reserve limits " would be tantamount to approving their extinction", adding that it was essential that increases in the reserve areas should be made. It was decided to purchase the required land from WAPV in Victoria and negotiations continued until 1933, eventually also involving the Moliwe plantation resulting in the repurchase from both companies of a total of 6,698 acres at a cost of £9,202 to the Nigerian Government. From 1946, a Bakweri Organisation (The Bakweri Land Committee) made several requests to the United Nations Trusteeship council for the return of all alienated lands to the indigenous inhabitants. Since 1947, the former German estates have been LEASED by the Nigerian government to the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) in the interest of Southern Cameroons as a whole and the trusteeship council noted that ultimate ownership was in fact vested in the Southern Cameroons people. In 1948 a senior administrative officer, Mr. W.M. Bridges, was asked by the Nigerian Government to inquire into the land needs of the Bakweri people of the Victoria division. Part of his extremely competent report was summarized for publication in 1949 (Lorimer, 1954, p. 75-78.). The inquiry was conducted on the basis that fifteen acres per household would be adequate for the needs of the inhabitants, a basis, it should be stated, in many areas errs heavily on the side of generosity. As a result, it was discovered that, while the more fortunately placed communities possessed between them 6,543 acres in excess of the amount of land calculated on this basis, the remainder would require additions of land amounting altogether to 25,000 acres. However, it is significant that the reporting officer stated " in nearly every case in which a local shortage of farming land was observed it was found to be due in main to the fact that immigrants, taking advantage of the widespread breakdown in control of land-use, had obtained the use of farmland which the local community could ill spare". It was maintained by the administration that the indigenous people tended to leave agriculture in the hands of immigrants and that the further enlargement of the reserves would only result in more land being taken into use by immigrants. The Nigerian government therefore proposed that the excisions from plantation lands leased to the CDC be made on the basis of fifteen acres per household to members of the indigenous tribes, but under safeguards. The excised land should be controlled by public bodies on which the people, the administration and the CDC would be represented to ensure sound use of the land, with the provision technical advice and a guaranteed market for the surplus agricultural products of the settlers.

43

Those proposals were rejected by the Bakweri Land Committee who claimed nothing less than the return of all alienated lands to the Bakweri tribe. The trusteeship council of the UN urged the Bakweri Land Committee to accept these proposals. After Reunification, this issue faded into the background during the period of constitutional change. The long story has just one aim: To point out the roots of the "Bakweri Land Problem". The problem had its roots in the methods whereby lands were alienated to plantation interests in the period of the German Protectorate. In the early days, the problem was one of reconciling the plantation concessionaires. The land problem is an aspect of the whole problem immigration. Bibliography: -Grundstuck-Angelegenheiten: IV B 71, Nro. 4 d. N.R., 15 August 1885 -Grundbuch: Appendix K, p. 413 - Robert Kuczynski, 1939. The Cameroons and Togoland. A demographic Study London: O.U.P. - H.H Rudin, 1958. Germans in the Cameroons, 1884-1914. London - Ardener, Arderner and Warmington, 1960 - Victoria Division Annual Report, March 1933 - "Petitions from Bakweri Land Committee. Summary of the Findings and Recommendations of the Investigating officer and the preliminary Observations of the Nigerian Government" (Lagos, 1949). - Laws of Nigeria, 1948, Cap. 105 Edwin Arderner, Kingdom on Mount Cameroon: Studies in the History of Cameroon Coast, 1500-1970, Oxford, 1996. Jovita T. Nsoh

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:33:14 -0500 From: SIMON TANDE <[email protected]>Organization: Microsoft Corporation Subject: Re: Bakweri Land Issue: BackgroundComments: To: Jovita Nsoh <[email protected]> Jovita is indeed trying too hard to prove that the Bakweri can lay no claim on their ancestral lands currently being managed by the CDC. First, Jovita has taken the land sales agreements between the 1887 Buea chiefs and Valdau completely out of context. It is interesting to note, as Edwin Ardener has clearly does in his seminal book on the Bakweri of Buea ("Kingdom on Mount Cameroon"), that the land sales in question were very controversial even by the standards of the time. Like with most "land sales" between African chiefs and European governments, both parties had diametrically opposed notions of what these sales entailed. But the Europeans always prevailed because they had the means to enforce their own point of view. But that is a different topic altogether.... By injecting the Buea land sales into the current debate, Jovita has cunningly extrapolated this land sale in Buea to the entire Fako division to confuse the unwary. for starters, the "Bwea" mentioned in the letters below is NOT synonymous to Fako division. In fact, is not even up to a third of the present- day Buea. The Buea in question is clearly outlined in the map of the territory

44



done by Dr. Preuss on behalf of the German administration in 1897; This land covered a mere 212 hectares of land. It extended from the current mountain hotel road, uphill to the Lodge, across to the Presbyterian mission, down the old Buea stadium, curving behind the magistrate's court, through Federal Quarters, down to the catholic mission and back to mountain hotel. The areas beyond this perimeter (Soppo, Molyko, Muea, Tole, etc.) were not part of Lower, Middle or Upper Bwea. Whatever the case, there is no question that the "Bwea" lands were never used as plantation lands either by the Germans or later, the by CDC; they were never handed over to the CDC at anytime in history; and, the Bakweri have never demanded that these lands, which now house the administrative structures of the SW province, be returned to them. I therefore fail to see how the Buea land sales, as interesting as they are, can be considered relevant to the current CDC issue. Read the agreement with Von Soden carefully. It promises the successors of the governor, "unrestricted PRIOR right of purchase to the land, ...they will not sell this land to third persons without PRIOR NOTIFICATION to the Governor." This agreement did NOT grant unrestricted right of land purchase. Instead, it gave the Germans Unrestricted PRIOR right of purchase in Buea. There is a huge different between the two. Consequently, this document could not have served as the basis for the massive land EXPROPRIATION (not purchase!) that subsequently occurred all over Fako division. Jovitah asserts in his posting that: "These treaties gave the two major German firms: Woermann and Jantzen und Thormahlen, plantations to come into Bimbia (Kamerun Land- und Plantagen Gesellschaft) and Bibundi (West Afrikanishe Planzungsgesellschaft Bibundi (WAPV). It should be pointed out that the WAPV which obtained a lot of concessions and became the most important plantation was later renamed the CDC under the Southern Cameroons.” Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!!!! Please can you explain how the "sale" of 212 hectares of land in Buea is related to the treaties that allowed the Woermann and Jantzen companies to set up shop in present-day Fako division (Man O'War bay and Bibundi respectively, to the North-East and East of Victoria)? What exactly has the sale of land to the Germans by Gbea chiefs got to do with the forceful expropriation of nearly 400 square miles of prime lands from the Bakweri, and the violent expulsion of the Bakweri from their ancestral lands to inhospitable "Native Reserves" where they lived like animals and eventually lost their socio-cultural bearings? what has this sale got to do with the non-respect of agreements reached with the CDC back in 1947? Tell me please.... In another deliberate attempt to mislead the public, Jovita boldly asserts that "the WAPV ...was later renamed the CDC under the Southern Cameroons." The WAPV was just one of the numerous plantations that eventually made up the CDC. For example, there were other major plantations such as the Moliwe, Ekona, Meanja, Tiko Holforth, Debundscha plantations. The bulk of these plantations were established on expropriated (including many of the later-day acquisitions of the WAPV). whenever these plantations needed more land, the German government simply transferred more indigenes into the reserves. For example, when the AFC (a leading company whose plantations were located west of the Tiko plain) started construction of the Tiko Wharf on Keka island, the German government herded the Bakweri living on the island into the crowded 300-acre Mutombolombo native reserve. for the record, therefore, the WAPV did not become the CDC. It was merely part of the puzzle, and not all of its lands were legitimately acquired from the Natives. Although Jovita haughtily proclaims that; "The outcry by some Camnetters seems to be because we do not really know what happened to those plantations after the Germans left and the English

45

came in.", the truth is that his narrative tells us nothing new about the agreements reached between the Bakweri and the CDC after the second World War. In fact, his piece is a patchwork of so many different issues, few of which are directly relevant to the Bakweri/CDC question. Claiming that land was not returned to the Bakweri prior to independence because they would have sold if off to immigrants, is patronizing at best, and clearly shows how many of us are approaching the Bakweri land problem with preconceived notions that blur our objectivity. Whether the Bakweri would have sold ALL of their ancestral lands to "Strangers" had these lands been returned to them is not at issue. In fact, that would have been their prerogative. The issue here is the (non)respect of prior agreements reached with the CDC (i.e., the paying of ground rents to the Bakweri people, and the (non) respect of the 60-year land lease agreed upon in 1947). The issue is also about the protection of the ancestral lands of an indigenous minority; a protection that guaranteed not just by national and international law. Dibussi

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:13:20 PDT From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Bakweri Land Issue: Background Dear Mr. Nsoh, Your piece is enlightening. However, allow me to raise a few points. As a student of history we were taught a number of things among which were the analysis of diplomatic texts. Every text is interpreted based on who drafted it, what were the underlying interests involved for the party that drafted it. To the best of my knowledge no diplomatic text, agreement, convention or name it, has ever been done without prevailing interests of the stronger party. At the time of the writing of those text the local peoples did not fully understand the underlying dimensions of what they entered into. This does not mean that they should at the point when they realize this reclaim their property on the grounds of historical wrongful procession. We must always interpret texts, particularly colonial deeds, in sympathy with those innocent ones on whom the agreements were being imposed - for impositions they were. The prevailing interests of the 1884, 1948, etc. document were not the Bakweri peoples but those of the British and German interests. The Bakweri ownership of those lands did not begin in 1884, 1948 or some date fixed by those who intended to usurp native rights for the interests that divided Africa in the first place. In as much as the ownership of British lands did not respond to the Roman conquest but to the indigenous ownerships of the times before the Romans and remains until today. Why should anybody use those foreign interest fixed or any date set in any agreement of colonial origin, as a basis for the ownership of any piece of land. Such claims call for a redefinition of property rights which the BLCC situation now demands. I see the BLCC demands as asking for a review of all land property right definitions and a nullification of deeds that displaced ownership. It is part of the global process of reparations. It does not matter whether the proceeds of the exploitation of that land are shared by all in the nation, this should not at any point disenfranchise the owners - first settlers on the land - not those who came later to hoist a flag over the people.

46



No one should confuse this situation with the right to privatize public business. All that is at stake here is that, while the business was being carried out, it was being done on someone's land who now want it back. What is done with the business that is on the land is another situation but since it cannot be carried out without a definition of ownership, that need to be sorted out. By corollary, the other CDC estates stand the same consideration. Take the Ndu estate. It was a deed between the owners of the Ndu land and a private English company. Although I am not on firm grounds here as to the deed of agreement since I do not have them in front of me, what I remember from my Ndu Chief's Palace connections, there was no indication of the company ever claiming rights to the land or that the land would be passed to a third party, including the CDC without the due negotiation of the local population. Unfortunately, the 1974 law was, to my understanding, different from the 1948 one in that it expropriated the original owners of the land and declared, by Presidential decree (sometimes above the law), government owners of all lands. The government could then expropriate people if this was for development. This was a harsh and unjust law which is now being contested. There are no grounds, including the invocations of Mr. Susungi that deprive the people of this right of redress. The BLCC and those who might follow suit in other places, Ndu, Santa, Dschang, etc. are saying that this is the crucial time to do just that. This has nothing to do with the sentiment of Political Party allegiances. On the question of privatization and the ownership of the CDC. I agree with Mr. Susungi that development of all lands by the government is in the public interest. However, there is also a situation of justice which demands a rightful share to the landowners. This is the case of the BLCC and subsequently that of the Ndu and the CDC holdings that will be up for privatization. The bottom line is that until we understand what the property rights are, this privatization might also mean the privatization of the people's lands without their consent. Here I agree with Dr. Mbaku’s position. These texts should be interpreted within the context of the understanding and function of property rights as were defined by the natives at the time the colonials came in. It is never too late to right wrongs. L. Tandap

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:02:14 -0400 From: Lyombe Eko <[email protected]> Organization: University of Maine Subject: Re: Bakweri Land Issue: Background Dear Mr. Nsoh, You wrote in part: <<The first two agreements point out how the Buea People "lost" their lands: >Buea File IV B 34j, Vol.2. Created on 11.1.1911 and closed 11.8.1911, it >contains a compilation of the following agreements, together with the >following correspondence: >1. The Agreement of 18. February 1887: >[The text which follows was handwritten in ink, totally in English, with the spellings as herein >printed] >{ "

47

> Mapanja, 18th Feb., 1887 Yours Excellency! Yesterday I succeeded in buying whole Bwea for you. As the trade within Victoria and the mountain towns since long time is cut off by the fight within Bojongo and Bosumbo I got it to good price. I could not get all the kings and chiefs together at one time because the Upper and Lower Buea are enemies and must therefore make two contracts. The prices on the contracts are after the account of the people-not the prices of the factories.... At the enclosed note you will find the goods which are to be sent. The people want that kind capsgun Mr Allen sell in Cameroons.... >From the above agreements, we are made to believe that the Bwea people sold their land a long >time ago.>> Thank you for providing the "background" information about the transactions that took place between the Germans and the Bakweri chiefs in 1887. Unfortunately, your background information, particularly the last statement, provides more heat than light. The real background of the problem is the Berlin conference of 1884-85. Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the colonial history of Africa knows that Cameroon and most of Africa became European government "possessions" under the terms of the Berlin West Africa Conference which took place from November 15, 1884 to February 26, 1885, and was presided over by "His Serene Highness, Prince Otto von Bismarck. The Berlin West Africa Conference was attended by the five Great powers--Germany, France, Britain, Austria-Hungary and Russia as well as Turkey, eight other European states and the United States of America (as observers). The official document of the Berlin conference was called: The Declaration relative to Freedom of Trade in the Basin of the Congo, its Mouths and circumjacent Regions, with other Provisions connected therewith. The document says in part: "Any Power which henceforth takes possession of a tract of land on the coasts of the African continent outside of its present possessions, or which being hitherto without such possession, shall acquire them, as well as the power which assumes a protectorate there, shall accompany the respective act with a notification thereof, addressed to the other Signatory Powers of the present Act, in order to enable them, if need be to make good any claims of their own." Article 34 (Chapter V1). Article 25 (Chapter V) of the Final Declaration of the conference concludes that [t]hese provisions are recognized by the Signatory Powers as forming henceforth a part of international law." Thus, under international law at that time, the whole of Cameroon belonged to Germany who could do with the territory as it saw fit. The little trinkets given to chiefs by intermediaries were aimed at pacifying them and making it easier for Germany to claim its property-- the territory which was already its "possession" under the terms of the Treaty of Berlin. The same pattern of pacifying chiefs with little gifts occurred in all colonial territories. The "sale" of land between Africans and Europeans was never a "willing buyer, willing seller transaction."

48

It was expropriation under duress--and force of arms. In East Africa, the highlands were declared "European Highlands" and the Africans given bits and pieces of cheap merchandise and told to move away. This was the main reason for the Mau Mau revolt--loss of their land. Finally, there is one little curious statement in your background information: >At the enclosed note you will found the goods which are to be send. The people >want that kind capsgun Mr Allen sell in Cameroons.... Here you see that the people were asking the Germans for guns. Fortunately for the people, the intermediary did not understand what the guns were for. If you research this issue a little further--and I am sure your will do that--you will find that the Bakweri people used the guns obtained to fight against the Germans. That tells you this was not a fair transaction and that the Bakweri were not willing to part with their land. I do not know why you emphasize that the "sales agreements" were in English. The Bakweri people are not British and it would have been amazing to find chiefs who could understand English "sales agreements" in 1887! Furthermore, when Germany lost the First World War, she also lost her overseas territories because of the so-called colonial guilt clause. Two articles of the Colonial Clause of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) stripped Germany of her territories. Article 118 of the Treaty of Versailles states that as far as territories outside Europe is concerned, Germany renounces all rights, titles and privileges whatever in or over territory which belonged to her or her allies, and all rights, titles and privileges whatever their origin which she held as against the Allied and Associated Powers. Article 119, Section I said in part: Germany renounces in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her overseas possessions. According to the United States Department of State (annotation to the Treaty of Versailles, 1947) the German delegation said that they found this article unjust because Germany had acquired her colonies lawfully (under international law) and invested a lot of resources in their development. The British Government provided official evidence of German misadministration in its colonies by publishing several atrocity Blue Books with several graphic pictures of German brutality in its colonies. In the eyes of the Allies, German colonial policy was morally indefensible, politically and economically unsound and criminally brutal (p.100). It was therefore the general conclusion that Germany was unfit to continue to be a colonial power. The point I am trying to make is that it is wrong to say that the Bakweri or the Kikuyu (Kenya) or the Angolans or South Africans sold their land to Europeans. The land did not even belong to them under international law! While it is important to provide information, the selective use of historical information is misinformation. As intellectuals, it is our duty to avoid propaganda like the plague. Have a productive day, sir. Lyombe Eko

49

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:30:38 EDT From: Jovita Nsoh <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Re: Bakweri Land Issue: Background] Let me make my last comments on this issue. Well, Simon, your outrage at the assertion that the West Afrikanische Pflanzunggesselschaft was "renamed" CDC is understandable. But to the extent that more than 90% of CDC asserts, including it's employees and headquarters were once asserts of the WAP makes the difference between the CDC and the WAPV merely semantic. In substance, the WAPV became the CDC. I know that other minor concessions were also included in the repurchase. The West Afrikanische Pflanzunggesselschaft (WAP) Bibundi, [which by the way obtained their tract of land by purchase from the native chiefs, and there was inclusion of a clause in the agreement recognizing the rights of the natives. Again, various individuals purchased from the government tracts of Crown land of about 2,000 to 3,000 hectares (5,000 to 7500 acres) at an average prices of 5 German Marks per hectare. In one such case Crown land was even created to make the transaction possible.] These properties and interests were later amalgamated into the WAPV (with the "V" standing for Victoria) which was to become the most important of the companies with head regional quarters in Bota and corporate H/Q in Berlin. I am not including the holdings of the Westafrikanische Handelsgesellschaft (D.W.H.) amounting to more than 50,000 acres on the Meme and Ndian Rivers around the Rio del Rey. These properties however, later became part of the CDC. I made sure that my discussion was not limited solely to concessions/Lands around Buea. I am talking of most of the colonial concessions stretching from the coast up to Buea. In the case of Buea, as you know, villages were confined in small rectangular enclaves, and it was here that the reciting of villages became most common (e,g. Wokeli, moved to found the Sachsenhofen Plantation of WAPV). It is very true that the circumstances were very, very controversial. Take the case of the extensive Guenther concession at Soppo, which contained so many Bakweri Villages, with fragments of ill-defined boundaries. These were simply merged with WAPV as the Tole and Molyko plantations. The Esser-Oechelhaeuser (Ekona) and Moliwe concessions also contained all the Lisoka, Muea, and several other groups of Bakweri, as well as the Balong of Mapundu. At this time no other concession had been obtained on what is now known as Tiko Plain except that of the Kamerun Land und Plantegen-Gesselschaft (of which Likomba now forms part). Von Basser's map of 1889 does not show Tiko, indicating only a "Bakweri Dorf" (meaning " Bakweri Village") on Keka Island. To rely on a single map could be very misleading because the Germans drew maps as lands changed hands. I do not want to go into the aborts of this issue. It is long, interesting, but I do not have time for that. So, contrary to what you claim, I am not making allusion to a tiny stretch of land in Buea. I am also talking about the German Victoria District known in German as "Bezirk". This Bezirk included the whole area of the Cameroon Mountain and consequently territory occupied by the Bakweri, Bamboko, Balong, Isubu and Wovea. The Bakolle and Fish Towns were also included even though they were included in a separate district of Rio del Rey. You also seem to be at variance with me concerning the coming into Kamerun of the two major companies. I see no reason why you should be. Read Rudin, Assistant Professor of History and Fellow of Pierson College, Yale University, Yale University, 1931). In 1884 the exploitation of the country by plantations had not been the primary intention of the Germans. However, beginning as early as 1885, under the initiative of the two major trading firms, Woemann and Jantzen und Thormaehlen, Plantations were founded at Bimbia (Kamerun Land- Und Plantagen Geselleschaft) and Bibumdi (West Afrikanische Pflanzungsgesellschaft Bibundi), a Bamboko settlement on the coast to the west and north of Victoria. Note Victoria not Bwea.

50

I did not in any way undermine the Bakweris' claim to their land. Instead, I have wanted to bring out another version of the story that has so far been unfortunately and cunningly left out or neglected by most of us. As Mr. Lyombe Eko says "the selective use of historical information is misinformation. As intellectuals, it is our duty to avoid propaganda like the plague." While I am in total agreement to that admonishment from Mr. Eko, I will wish to know that his message is also directed to all those who find it distasteful to read sad facts about our/their history and pride themselves with only those areas they are comfortable with. I am refraining from making any conclusions here. I present mere facts. To classify me as someone with a preconceived agenda, simply because I express views you dislike, is unfortunate. Mr Eko makes one other serious remark. He writes: "Thank you for providing the "background" information about the transactions that took place between the Germans and the Bakweri chiefs in 1887. Unfortunately, your background information, particularly the last statement, provides more heat than light. The real background of the problem is the Berlin conference of 1884-85." I am finding it hard to go on. But let me try. The Berlin conference sir, was the (official) beginning of a process and not the end of it. I do not really know what you want here but I will say that that conference sanctioned the beginning of the partition of Africa (Duh!!). I do not want to go back to 1845 when the first English settlement of a permanent sort was started by Baptist missionaries near Douala and later their second settlement in Bimbia. Even though the Berlin Conference gave them the leeway to "partition" Africa, treaties with local chiefs, N'fons, Ubongs etc, were not signed immediately. In some cases, those treaties were signed until the outbreak of the First World War. So, while the Berlin Conference was very important, it might have just a referential relevance in some discussions and will not be the "real Background". In the case of Buea, treaties were signed in 1887, (sorry, two years after the conference.).I found it a repetition if not irrelevant to write about facts I assume you all know. What direct relevance is the Berlin Conference to the Bakweri Land issue? We may as well go back to the coming of the Portuguese in the 1500's. That said, I would want to end by thinking that perhaps it will be best to provide references for you to consult. The best collection of German colonial literature is that of the "Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft" in Berlin. As books were received, they were listed in pages of the Colonial Society's magazines, "Die Deutsche Kolonialzeitung". The Society's Liberian, Maximilian Brose later published classified lists of these books in a series of pamphlets entitled "Die Deutsche Kolonialliteratur"("The German Colonial Literature"). An American list of books on colonial literature is that of O.P. Austin, "Colonial Administration, 1800 - 1900 (Washington, 1901). It contains a bibliography made by A.B.C. Graffin of the books in the library of Congress in 1900 on General theme of colonization. Maximilian Von Hagen, Bismarcks Koloniapolitik (< biblio >), also gives an excellent and convenient selection of works on German colonialism. A "must read" for those interested is unpublished books and articles found in the Public Record Office in London and those of the German Aussenministerium (Foreign Office) here in Berlin. For many researchers, these sources have furnished documents that are indispensable for an understanding of England's relations with Nigeria and the Cameroons through the year 1885. These materials lead to answers ranging from plans England had worked out for establishing control over Cameroon and West Africa as a whole, to lengthy and acrimonious correspondences between Germany and England. There are many official sources. For those who have written to me expressing interest in these sources, I will say that you need intermediate – Advanced knowledge of German to be able to consult these sources. Here is short list:

51

1. Die Deutsche Kolonial-Gesetzgebung: Is a collection of treaties, laws, decrees, and instructions for the years 1884-1909. 2. Die Grosse Politik, XXIX, 1911: For agreements between Germany and France. This is indispensable; 3. Das Deutsche Kolonialblatt: This very "cool" one contains volumes of the numerous treaties made by Germans with defeated tribes in the colony, published by the colonial administration in Berlin. 4. Die Deutsche Kolonial-Gesetzgebung: Again? International agreements, like those at Berlin in 1884-1885 and Brussels in 1890, 1899(Dr. Lyombe Eko, take note), and later, can be found in the volumes of this one. 5. Togogebiet und Biafra-Bai, No 41 in den Anlagen zu den Reichtagsverhandlungen, 1884-1885: This very important one gives the German official; account of their occupation of Kamerun. A convenient reprint may be found in "Das Staatsachiv", XLIII (Leipzig, 1884), docs. 8269-8282, pp. 224-74 6. Debates on colonial legislaton are found in "Stenographisches Berichte Ueber die Verhandlungen des Reichtages". 7. Die Landesgesetzgebung fuer Schutzgebiet Kamerun, by Dr. Julius Ruppel, 1912: Has a handy selection of legislation and ordinances for the Cameroons. It is one of the most convenient volumes of such material for the colony. The list is long. Jovita T. Nsoh

52

CHAPTER SIX: EX-GOVERNOR GEORGE ACHU and EX-SDO ADE NGWA JOIN THE DEBATE

Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:49:34 EDT From: "Gov. Achu" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands: Gov. ACHU TESTIFIES Dear Netters, The above subject has been under discussion for some time on this forum. I have read some of the contributions with a lot of interest. They are quite instructive. I have decided to make a little contribution, to widen the scope. My thesis is that this operation is just one act in a strategic plan set up by the French puppet regime of Ahidjo at Unification to colonize our territory politically, economically, socially and culturally. The CDC seems to be the last major act in the scene. It is the castle that has to be taken to ensure the complete defeat of the enemy. In face of the privatization of CDC lands in Fako by the regime, I hope Bakweri elite and lackeys of the regime would understand that when you allow your "brother" to take charge of your house, don't complain when he starts selling your property or take your wife. When the regime took away their autonomy, the only protective shield the people of the Southern Cameroons (call it West Cameroon if you like) had and the people did not react, there is no limit to which it can go. Among the people who fell prey to the divide and rule (North West/SouthWest, Graffi/Coastal people, etc.) tactics of the government were the Bakweri people, many of whom supported their "leaders," handpicked by the regime. After taking and abandoning with impunity the Ports of Bota, Man O'War Bay, Tiko, PAMOL; after taking over and abandoning with impunity the Muyuka Power station, the Tiko, Besongabang and Bali airports, after liquidating the West Cameroon Development Agency (headquartered in Bakweriland) that was managing basic economic and social development projects such as Cameroons Hotels (e.g., Buea Mountain Hotel), Santa Coffee Estate ....... that is, after dismantling, disrupting and marginalizing the nascent economy of the former Southern Cameroons with impunity, why do the Bakweris or any group of people in this godforsaken territory believe the regime would stop? The Bakweris and all other tribes in this former German colony and UN trust territory should understand that the Republic of Cameroon (former French Cameroons) with whom we united in 1961 was not really an independent nation. In spite of its special status (UN trust territory under French Administration), it was treated like a French colony and in 1960 was not really independent. Like most of the former French colonies of West Africa and the Maghreb which Gaullist France wanted to include in the French Community, the Republic of Cameroon was in 1961 a puppet state of France. It was given, like the others, sham independence, with adhesion Cooperation Agreements (Accords) that bound the new "sovereign" states to their former colonial master. Ahidjo, Biya's mentor, was just an agent. Like all agents, he had to dance to the tune of the principal. One of the tasks he had was to bring the new territory of the Southern Cameroons into the French sphere of influence (Le Pré Caré?), by any means necessary. I believe one of the means was political: eliminating any form of organized resistance of exploitation of the territory by doing away with their autonomy (their government). Then, doing every thing to divide the people: first into two administrative regions, each with an administrator (Governor) appointed and accountable only to the regime in Yaounde. Each of these provinces is subdivided into Divisions, the Divisions into Subdivisions and the subdivisions into district, each headed by an

53


officer appointed and accountable only to Yaounde, not to the local people. As if this was not enough, the regime, to deprive the people of any remnants of local government, introduced the system of "government delegates" to oversee its interest in the big cities of Limbe, Kumba and Bamenda where there might be some form of organized resistance. With such a well planned takeover of the territory and its people, how do the Bakweris or any other tribe think they can single-handedly defend their land, the only thing they really have? Let them be real. Maybe if they were a war faring race like the "Graffi" people, they might threatened to fight it out with the regime like the Banso people who virtually seized their water supply from a takeover, for the neocolonial water company. Even if they succeeded, for how long? Do we think every village, clan, tribe, administrative division should fight to defend its interest? Those who think so are naive. Those who believe this may have fallen victim to brainwashing by the regime that has been instigating the people against each other (province v province, tribe v. tribe, village v. village, Ngu v Mola Njo, etc.). If the vicious policy of divide and rule had ever worked anywhere in the world, it has found an extremely fertile ground in Anglophone Cameroon. The regime has successfully brainwashed the people to believe that Disunity is Strength instead of Unity is Strength. Now the enemy is not from over the Mungo, not the one who is raping the territory and its people, but the Graffi man, the Coastal man, the Bayangi man, the Metta man, Mola, Akenji, etc. What do the people do in the face of this? With such a diagnosis of the illness, does one need a doctor to prescribe the type of treatment for the illness? An illness that has afflicted, is afflicting and has the potential to afflict not only the Bakweris, but all the oppressed, marginalized and exploited people of this territory, which until 1961 was a distinct person in international law? Is this trouble not caused by a surrogate regime in a bid to continue to satisfy its master, get its support and perpetuate its stay in power to work for the master, himself and a local clique of selfish power mongers? Should the takeover of the CDC not be seen in this light? Is the CDC not the one of the distinctive vestiges of our legacy and our autonomy? The logic is simple: take away the main visible vestige of the Southern Cameroons, the CDC, and the colonization process is over. If the Bakweris and all the other four million people of this territory do not understand this, then they have not understood what the problem is. If they don't, how can they prescribe an adequate treatment? Do I have one? No. Can the people find one? I believe, yes. On condition that they unite in a movement to restore their lost autonomy, the cause of the problem. Until there is an organization that defends the interest of the people as a whole, there will be no province, Division, tribe, village or person (Muna, Achu, Musonge, Endeley, etc.) who can do anything effective about it. What are the means at our disposal? I have always thought that democracy was the best of them. Now, in face of the situation and from the lessons of history, I am beginning to wonder whether we can continue to rely on this solely. Whether we can continue to plead, beg, entreat, petition, prostrate and hope for the regime to benevolently retreat from this path. I voted for Unification. One of the reasons was the myth of a Cameroon nation. I say a myth because that is one of the theories of the nation state. Cameroon today has little to do with German Cameroon, parts of which are now integrated in the neighboring French-speaking countries. Should Southern Cameroon not also be integrated in the Republic of Cameroon? It seems all the policies that are being pursued with regard to us has this as the main concern. Think of attempts to undermine the English educational system and replace it with the French baccalaureate over there. It took the combined efforts of parents, university and high school students from the 1980s to the present and bloody battles with the armed forces in Yaounde and other big cities to ward off the assault on this world-renowned English GCE educational system. The fight is not over; the regime tactically withdraws, rearms and comes back to attack, or tries to

54

go by the back door. Should the fight to protect this legacy be left only to parents and students concerned? You know what, I have always wondered whether Anglophone Cameroonians are among the most naive, cowardly and amorphous people in the world. Four million people herded to a corner of their house, starved and raped with no reaction. Or if there is, it is the work of each of them, acting individually. Some say the enemy is too strong. I agree. But you know what? Mao Tse Toung, one of the leaders of the Chinese revolution and its leader for decades said this: " imperialists are paper tigers". The truth of this has been verified by history, past and contemporary. Think of the Eritreans, less than 500,000 people that fought and won its independence recently from Ethiopia, a country with a large army and a population a hundred times its own, Ethiopia backed by the former Soviet Union. Think of the Vietcong, North and South Vietnamese fighters that forced the United States to abandon the puppet regime in South Vietnam to end the Vietnamese war in the sixties; think of the American revolutionaries in the 13 colonies that fought against the British for years and finally won the war after losing more than ten major battles. Historians can take over. The point I am making is that no body is too weak to cry out, demonstrate or fight an aggressor. The Bakweris and the others should continue to fight for their land and other interests undermined by the regime. But, unless there is a concerted action by all the people, in the whole territory, over a long period, that may go beyond our individual lives, it is futile to think that the regime would be scared by individuals, a village or tribes acting separately. People have asked me where I stand, as a former Governor, ranking as a member of government, now one of the greatest opponents of the regime out of Cameroon. This is not the place to answer the question. However, suffice it here to say, I believed in a Cameroon nation. That is why in 1961 I walked twenty miles from Sasse college with a handful of other students to Mile 4, Limbe/Tiko Road to vote for Reunification. That is why I studied in the Federal University of Cameroon, run by the Fondation Francaise Pour l'Enseignment Superieur Au Cameroun). That is why I studied in France instead of insisting on going to Nigeria, America or Britain as many of my classmate who could not cope with the French. That is why I did not mind working in French-speaking Cameroon. I do not expect every Anglophone to have the knack I have for languages. If the subjection of Anglophone students to studies in French was part of the policy to make of them Anglophones that are subservient to the French and their lackeys, then the policy failed woefully in my case. With retrospect, I now understand what they were doing to us and now to other students from our territory: train puppets that would facilitate the subjugation of the people of the Southern Cameroon and take control of their economic resources (CDC, PAMOL, Petroleum, timber), their taxes, their education, their language, etc. I believed in two people (brothers if you like), equal and separate, living together like a couple for their mutual good with complete respect for each other. The Anglophone proponents of unification never thought that the union was going to end up being lopsided, being a relationship based on domination, exploitation, terror, and hate. If today there is an independence movement, it is because of this situation. Young people, frustrated with it, allegedly, took up arms in 1997 to hit some targets of the regime. Some say it was a setup, for reasons of political expediency, by the regime. Whatever the findings, there is no doubt that there is general frustration of the people with the regime. In spite of all attempts to draw its attention to the specific problems of this territory and the peaceful avenues to resolve the them, it continues to be intransigent. This is understandable. If it backs down, this would be a flaw in the strategic plan to take over this territory, which the Administering Authority and the UN stupidly or deliberately surrendered to the French, by refusing to give independence as an option.

55

Now the privatization of the CDC is the final act in the plan of one of the Allied Powers that defeated the Germans in Cameroon to takeover, for the benefit of its nationals, the former German plantations. It is a war booty. Only it is happening eighty years after the end of the First World War (1918). The CDC lands are no longer just ex-German plantations. They were taken over and developed by the Colonial ( Cameroon) Development Corporation, as an instrument for the development of the whole of the Southern Cameroons. From that point, the CDC is of interest not only to the Bakweri people, who were then few in numbers, but to all the people of these territory, many of whom, especially those from the Bamenda (now North West) Province, contributed heavily to the creation of the plantations, the infrastructures, the buildings, roads, etc. through near slave labor, as could be found in the plantations in the United States and Apartheid South Africa. I testify from personal knowledge. As a state inspector, I visited some of the labor camps of the CDC in the seventies. What I saw was appalling. Whole families (husband, wife and children) living in one-room structures, called houses. With one horrible, stinking bathroom and toilet in the center of the camp to serve dozens of occupants of the camp. It seems those who could stand these slave treatment were the Graffi people. So there was always a recruiting missions to Bamenda. They were so badly paid and treated that many of them had to borrow a tie and a coat to take a picture to send to their parents to look for a fiancée. It seems most Bakweri people could not live with these conditions on the plantations. I go into this overview of the CDC to make the point that the CDC is not only property of interest to the Bakweris, but to all people of this territory. I forgot to mention the fact that among the Graffis who participated in the development of the CDC are the Bamilekes. Was Paul Sinju Bamileke, a prominent businessman in Tiko, and I believe a former mayor of the city, one of the CDC workers who later got into business. I think so. This said, one may reasonably say that the CDC is of interest not only to the Bakweris, to Southern Cameroonians, but even to Cameroonians as a whole, if the government does not force the people of the territory to find happiness elsewhere. Is separation an option? I say yes. To what extent it goes (local government, restoration of the federation, independence) depends on the regime. The government has so far refused to listen, even to Foncha, the late founder of the federation. As I believe that a state exists to serve its people and not the people to serve the state, an abstract notion, if any group in the nation continues to be subjugated, marginalized and oppressed, it has a right to resort to armed struggle after exhausting peaceful means of resolution. It seems the people have either got to that point or are very close to it. Where are we now? The options on the political spectrum go from local government to independence. How far the aggrieved party goes depends on a number of factors including the sensitivity of the oppressor to the concerns of the oppressed. The most recent example is Kosovo, an autonomous province within Yugoslavia, whose autonomy was selfishly abolished by the Milosevic Serbian regime to create conditions for the domination of the Kosovoan Albanians by the Serbs. The rest is history. It took the NATO forces to put an end to this injustice...the ethnic cleansing. What is happening in Cameroon is not ethnic cleansing as in Kosovo, but a flagrant form of economic cleansing. Whether the people die of outright killing by agents of the regime or of misery due to neglect is the same. I read somewhere that in Cameroon there are medical doctors who cannot find work for two years after graduation. That a foot soldier, gendarme or rank and file policeman earns as much as if not more than a medical doctor in a government hospital. That poor people die of malaria, typhoid fever, tetanus, dysentery and other simple illnesses because the hospitals have no resources. In the meantime, members of government are buy luxury cars, build expensive houses and that one prominent one even bought a hospital in Germany. How can the Bakweris and the others be indifferent to this state of affairs, and wait until they are directly

56

threatened to act? There is an anecdote that warns people about monsters. It starts eating its enemies, and as the supply diminishes, its moves to its friends, family members, its wife and finally its children. When there is nothing left to eat, as it needs blood to live, it commits suicide. This is why no one should sit on the fence when there is a monster around. Some friends of the regime, such as Titus Edzoa, learned this too late. What of you? Like a couple, I believe that if one of the spouses has an advantage over the other in power, money and property and uses it as a means to subjugate and enslave the other, the other has a right, not a privilege, to seek redress. If there is no court, or no one to mediate to restore justice, then the aggrieved party has a right to divorce. Like divorce, separation of existing parts of a nation state is a painful operation. However, as there is no painless birth (Doctors correct me), there can be no struggle for the birth of a new nation from an existing one without pain and suffering. The sacrifice made by the mother finds joy in the child. So do the freedom fighters in justice, freedom and independence. In conclusion, the takeover of the CDC lands is not only an injustice to the Bakweris but to all the people of the North West and South West Provinces (Southern Cameroons, West Cameroon, Anglophone, for readers who prefer the appellation). It is an affront, a challenge, to take over your castle. You remember the say, "a man's house is his castle." If a person cannot defend his castle, then he is not a man. Is it not said that it is better to die on your legs than to die on your knees? In Cameroon, seems the motto now is "I rather live on my knees than die on my legs." If that is the case, then the people deserve the government the have, and their plight. Too bad for the innocent victims. Sorry for this long epistle. Since my Sabbatical ended a few weeks ago, I have been trying to catch up. If there are any flaws of fact, I'd be grateful for correction. See you soon. G. Achu, LLB, MPA, LLM Former Senior Administrative Officer, Former Provincial Governor, Cameroon

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:48:51 PDT From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands: Gov. ACHU TESTIFIES Mr. Achu's piece is not only emotionally healthy but also puts the situation for many of us who voted in the plebiscite either for or against, very dramatically clear. In the tradition of democracy where the minority accepts what the majority has decided, Southern Cameroonians who voted against reunification turned round to work for its success. The underlying truth is that no Southern Cameroonian wanted a divided Cameroon after the 1961 majority decision because it was their believe that, in the usual democratic tradition that they knew, there would be no discrimination in treatment. The facts related by Mr. Achu are there. Another aspect which Mr. Achu did not raise but which was equally serious was the change of names of administrative divisions in West Cameroon to wipe out their history. Victoria became Limbe; Nkambe became Donga-Mantung etc. But today we still have "Rue de L'Union Francaise" in Douala, Avenue Charles de Gaulle her and there. How does anyone explain this. I am interested.

57


If I understand him well, there is no doubt as to the Bakweri right to their land but the economic exploitation of that land brought benefits to all. It will be noticed most of the businesses that he numerates that the West Cameroon was expropriated of, were since headed by non-West Cameroonians. The bottom line is that the Bakweri initiative must be supported because history has a habit of repeating itself. LTandap

Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:40:48 PDT From: austin bessong <[email protected]>Subject: Re: The Bakweri Lay Claim to CDC Lands: Gov. ACHU TESTIFIES Sir: It's always emotionally healthy to say it out. This piece brings some sad memories. Some point of contention, not only "graffi" people stayed in those sub-human houses in the C.D.C camps. a. Bessong

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:20:33 GMT From: Nicholas Ade Ngwa <[email protected]> Subject: Re CDC Land issue The Cameroons Development Corporation. This Corporation as the name implies was a Body set up by another organisation of the same acronym CDC - Commonwealth Development Corporation for the DEVELOPMENT of Cameroons. The emphasis was Development. Property on which this Corporation was set (land and what was on it), was what was known as Ex-Enemy Property. Who was this enemy? The Germans who were defeated in the 2nd World War. It was thought and rightly so that this Property be developed for the benefit of Cameroonians both in the then North British Cameroon (now in Nigeria as a result of the Plebiscite) and the Southern Cameroons all under British Rule as mandated territory. For many years the Commonwealth Development Corporation ran and managed the enterprise. Later, as Cameroonians became more and more qualified, they were incorporated in the management and eventually, the organisation was slowly turned over to them and the CDC experts slowly withdrew. True Government now began to assist in the survival of the Corporation, but this did not mean that the interest of the original people for whom this Trust was set up should be set aside and only Government interest considered to the extent of selling off the People's property in the name of Privatisation.

58



Let us examine the activities of the CDC - Cameroons Development Corporation - from its inception. From profits realised and from Grants made to it by the British Government through the Commonwealth Development Corporation this Body went to work to carry out DEVELOPMENT in the Cameroons under British Rule i.e. Northern and Southern Cameroons. After the Plebiscite, development was now concentrated in the then Southern Cameroons which metamorphosed into West Cameroon under Ahidjo and now to North West and South West Provinces under President Biya.. Cameroon Development Corporation's (CDC) main activity to date is Agriculture and some allied activities. Profits from the sale of Products (Rubber, Cocoa, bananas, tea, palm oil etc) was ploughed into the DEVELOPMENT of Cameroons and its Peoples. Thus various developmental organs were set up for this purpose. In the Social Aspect, Schools, Clinics and Hospitals were set up in the various areas in its activities were undertaken. Children of workers went to these Schools and along with their parents and relatives had free medical attention as far as it was possible. Subsidizing this service was sometimes necessary. To further the education of Cameroonians, CDC awarded Scholarships for further studies both within and outside the Country. The writer of this contribution and many others of his time went to Nigeria and Overseas (Britain and other parts of Europe) on such scholarships for further studies.. In the home front Social activities included Athletics, soccer, hand and basket ball competitions. These activities were organised by as special wing of the Corporation. Annually, CDC staged the Amateur Athletics Association Games, which brought in Athletes form all over the Country. Apart from these, competitions were organized for the other sporting activities. For purposes of entertainment, a the CDC Film Unit was set up. This Body toured to Camps, Public places and Schools to show various films to the people. From the above it would be observed that the primary aim of the Corporation has been side tracked and emphasis laid more on money making that DEVELOPING the people. In addition the CDC built roads to disenclave areas and this helped in the movement of people and goods. Note should be taken here that the CDC was not only for the now South West Province. The present British/Council Library is housed in a structure financed by proceeds from the CDC. If one were to visit the former North British Cameroons, now in Nigeria, he will find a similar structure in the then capital town. INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT PRIVATISING THE PEOPLES PROPERTY, She should return it to its original owners with advise as to how best it can be made profitable for the good of the People as it was originally intended. (Nicholas Ade Ngwa Retired Senior Divisional Officer)

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:02:57 PDT From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Re CDC Land issue Mr. Ngwa, Greetings and thanks for what I would like to call your powerful rejoinder to Mr. George Achu's posting. In the vein of you posting, it is no wonder that during the CDC of old, the Bakweri did not bother to lay such claim as they are doing now, because, despite the squalid conditions

59



described by Mr. Achu, there was a strong attempt at DEVELOPMENT in all the sectors. Since reunification the CDC gradually changed into a CEC - Cameroon Exploitation Cooperation. All those facilities disappeared and even the West Cameroonian management was replaced and the proceeds were developing others elsewhere outside the environments of the plantations. Why should the Bakweri or any other lands be used in a manner in which even the colonial masters did not think of doing? Warm greetings again, sir LTandap

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:30:16 +1000 From: Johnson Nkem <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Re CDC Land issue Comments: To: Nicholas Ade Ngwa <[email protected]> Pa Ngwa, Thanks for giving this fine historical records CDC has played in the lives of many some of whom want it to be sold to day. In recent times, the case of Pamol should serve as a clear example of the "peoples power" to manage a corporation, in line with their destiny despite the many economic rhetorics about the benefit of privatisation. Perhaps the case of Pamol has defied all economic theorems of privatisation from when Unilever pulled out and a liquidator was appointed to face out the company, until it was usurp by the people themselves. Ever since, there have been no rumbling from the Ndian rivers and the live of the people have remain on track. The wisdom of people like you who put in all in constructing the nation, is highly required now to stand in the way of those who wants to put it in ruins. Have a nice day Johnson

60

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE AMBE NJOH CONTRIBUTIONS

7.1. Article Written Before the release of the BLC Memo to the Cameroonian Diaspora

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:31:56 -0400 From: "Ambe Njoh (COAS)" <[email protected]>Subject: CDC & The Bakweri Land Question Interested Parties: The following piece is culled from one of my articles, under consideration for possible publication in Planning Perspectives. Its contents may shed some light on the questions that have been raised in the recent past on CDC lands by Dr. Lyombe Eko and others. Ambe

CDC & THE BAKWERI LAND QUESTION Introduction Earlier accounts of the Bakweri land question failed to acknowledge the impact of colonial plantation agricultural development schemes on the indigenous land tenure system of the Hfako people. Yet, plantation agriculture has always played a crucial role in the political economy in land reform efforts throughout the history of Cameroon. In the Beginning, the traditional land tenure system of the people of Hfako is much like those of other sub-Saharan African societies. Thus, prior to the advent of colonialism, land was communally owned and never constituted a commodity in the European sense. Enter the Germans Soon after the signing of the treaty that annexed Cameroon on July 12, 1884, the Germans moved speedily to transfer en masse, land from the hands of the "natives" to those of the German Crown. Of particular interest to the German imperial government was the agricultural potential of the fertile volcanic soils at the foot of Mount Cameroon. With respect to the German land acquisition scheme, no means was off-limits. In fact, an official letter dated May 6, 1884 from Adolf Woermann, a top-ranking official in the German government at the time, instructed German colonial officials on the ground in Cameroon to, by all means necessary, acquire fertile land from the "natives." Hence, the fact that deceit, outright manipulation, prevarication, and dishonesty, constituted important elements in the land appropriation calculus of the German colonial authorities. The Native Reservation Schemes Prominent amongst the land acquisition schemes crafted by the German imperial authorities was one that was designed to resettle all Hfako people in reservation enclaves or what the Germans branded, "native reserves" (cf. the case of apartheid South Africa). This scheme was the

61



brainchild of von Puttkamer, then, the German colonial governor of the territory. Widespread opposition on the part of the "natives" resulted in the scrapping of this scheme. German Land Acquisition Schemes: A Huge Success The opposition notwithstanding, the colonial authorities registered enormous success as they were able to appropriate enormous parcels of fertile land free of charge through force, trickery and in rare cases at the token cost of 5 marks per hectare. All Land was Colonial Government Property On July 15, 1896, a landmark law, the Crown Lands Act, officially converted all so called, "unoccupied lands" throughout Kamerun into the property of the German Overseas Dominions. It takes very little imagination to know that, given the scanty population of Hfako, especially during the German colonial era, almost all land was "unoccupied." In essence therefore, almost all land in the area became the property of the colonial government. The Germans are Out Following WW I: So What? As intimated above, during the period immediately preceding the breakout of WW I, substantial portions of Bakweri lands were held by German companies and individuals involved in large scale plantation agriculture. By some accounts, as much as 264, 000 acres of land in Victoria Division (present day, Fako Division) and Kumba Division (present day, Meme and Ndian Divisions) were controlled by foreign (particularly, German) farmers, and held as German Crown Land by 1914. Enter the Nigerian Government At the end of the War, these estates were ceded to the Nigerian Government, through which Britain administered the U.N. Trust Territory of the British Cameroons. The official pronouncement authorizing this arrangement was articulated by Proclamation No. 25 of 1920. Subsequent to this, there was a decision in favour of auctioning the estates, which at the time were classified as ex-enemy property. German or ex-enemy nationals were not allowed to participate in the bidding process. The auction, which was held in London in October 1922, was a total fiasco as only few of the estates were sold. Yet, the need to dispose of the estates, whose maintenance the British colonial government perceived as an economic burden, had become urgent. Re-Enter the Germans Thus, another public auction designed to find able and willing buyers for the estates was slated for November 1924. This time, and contrary to the conditions of the previous public auction, ex-enemy nationals were allowed to participate. Consequently, with the assistance of the German Government, most of the estates were bought by their former German owners. Enter the U.N. Trust Administration The tenure of German companies and individuals as owners of these estates was however very brief. At the outbreak of WW II in 1939, ownership and control of the estates effectively reverted to Allied Powers. When the War ended in 1945, colonial authorities took a number of major decisions that significantly affected the future of the huge parcels of land that had been developed as large scale agricultural plantations by German entities. One such decision forbade the return of the plantations not only to German or ex-enemy nationals, but also to private ownership in general. From that point on, the estates became property of the colonial state, with control thereof vested in the Governor. In theory, this did not constitute a transfer of ownership of the lands in question to the Governor. Rather, the Governor was simply conferred the power of

62

supreme trusteeship and charged with the responsibility of administering the land for the common benefit of the African inhabitants of the Trust Territory. Enter Private Bodies What happened to the ex-enemy plantations that never came under the orbit of the colonial state, hence the custody of the Governor? There are at least three recorded instances of such lands becoming the outright possession of private entities for considerable periods. The first involved as much as 15, 584 acres of freehold estate in Tiko, the Likomba Estate (in the countrys South West Province), which remained under the ownership of Messrs Elders and Fyffes Ltd. and the Likomba Company in Germany until 1947, when Ordinance No. 22 (of 1947) empowered the Governor to control the estate. The Governor's control was however only in principle as the estate remained property of Messrs Elders and Fyffes and Likomba Company long after the country gained political independence in 1960. The second instance involved the wharf at Tiko, which was formerly held by the Afrikanische Fucht Kompagnie. This German company continued to own and operate the wharf, piers and jetties long after the decision vesting all such property in the Governor was in force. Finally, there is the case of large parcels of land in West Farm, Upper and Lower Farms in Buea. These parcels of land remained in the hands of private entities, particularly ex-enemy corporations, which had used the land for the purpose of producing dairy and vegetable growing under Certificates of Occupancy, for a considerable while following the decision endowing the Governor with the powers to control such lands for the interest of the general public had become operational. Fast-Forward----Enter the Republic of Cameroon With the decision on the part of Southern Cameroons to join la Republique of Cameroon in 1961, control of the estates, which had become property of the Nigerian government, was ceded to the government of Cameroon. The Republic of Cameroon's land legislation mirrors the land policies that were enacted by the colonial authorities. In this connection, Part I Section 1 (2) of Ordinance No. 74-1 of 6 July 1974, which establishes the rules governing land tenure in the country, declares that "the State shall be guardian of all lands. In this regard, it may in this capacity intervene to ensure rational use of land or in the imperative interest of defence or the economic policies of the nation." This declaration bears a striking resemblance to the German colonial government policy that declared all "unoccupied land" property of the Crown and the French colonial policy that converted "les terres vacantes et sans maitre" into Colonial State property. It would appear that the people of Hfako will be fighting an uphill battle should they decide to ask the land in CDCs (hence, the states) possession be returned to them. This is because, under the present land legislation, the state may need to do no more than contend that the land is actually being employed to meet the "imperative interests of national and regional economic development." Sources Consulted: Meek, C. K. (1957). Land Tenure and Land Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons. London: H. M. Stationery Office. Fisiy, F. C. (1992). Power and Privilege in the Administration of Law: Land Law Reforms and social Differentiation in Cameroon. Leiden: African Studies Centre.

63

Njoh, A. J. (1998). “The Political Economy of Urban Land Reforms in a Post-Colonial State.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22: 408-23. Republic of Cameroon (nd). Land Tenure and State Lands. Yaounde: National Printing Press.

7.2. Article Written After the release of the BLC Memo to the Cameroonian Diaspora

From: "Ambe Njoh (COAS)" <[email protected]>Subject: The Bakweri Land Question Netmates: There has been a flurry of exchanges on the Bakweri land question on this forum in the recent past. Albeit informative, these exchanges appear somewhat myopic as far as the crux of question goes. On this count, it would seem, even the committee charged with the responsibility of unravelling the complex web entangling Bakweri land may be barking up the wrong tree. In my humble opinion, to succeed, the concerned authorities must focus on revamping Cameroon's land laws. As long as the laws remain unaltered, any individual and/or collective claims such as those that have been forcefully articulated by the Bakweri Land Committee et al., appear indefensible. My assertion is bolstered by relevant provisions of the country's landmark land law of 1974 and particularly the behaviour of the country's post-colonial leadership in matters relating to land tenure. Attention is hereby drawn to Section 1, Part I of Ordinance No. 74-1 of the 1974 law. It reads thus:

The State shall be the guardian of all lands. It may in this capacity intervene to ensure

rational use of land or in the imperative interest of defence or the economic policies of the nation.

Although I possess no expertise in jurisprudence, it would appear the state can conjure any pretext she may deem fit (e.g. national defence, economic development, etcetera) to rationalize what may tantamount to a confiscation of any tracts of land (e.g. the Bakweri ancestral land). How tenable is a customary entitlement argument in the face of Cameroon's contemporary land laws? The response holds very little, if anything in the way of good news for the Bakweri or others with identical claims. It is crucial to note that the country's indigenous authorities have done a lot more to supplant customary, with so-called modern land tenure systems, than their colonial predecessors. It took four major steps on the part of the said to accomplish this dubious record. The first comprised reversing the 1959 colonial law, which re-established the supremacy of customary entitlements to land. Efforts in this connection were concretized by Decree No. 63-2 of January 9, 1963.

64



The second entailed ignoring all claims to land backed by other than formal or modern instruments. In this vein, officials expressly refuse to employ more substantive terms such as 'owners' and 'landlords' in favour of rather more inconsequential and seemingly innocuous terms such as 'holders' and 'occupants' to allude to the rights of members of the indigenous population over ancestral lands. The third step comprised resuscitating relevant provisions of pre-independence laws that were specifically aimed at increasing the colonial state's inventory of land and/or dispossessing the indigenous population of same. To accomplish this objective, the indigenous leadership drew inspiration from yet another colonial act, the 1932 Act that classified all lands that were not actively occupied as vacant and ownerless or les terres vacantes et sans maitre. In effect, all vacant and unoccupied parcels of land throughout the territory are classified under the 1963 law as "le patrimoine collectif national", whose administration falls directly under the rubric of the State. Here, land has to be effectively inhabited or is being actively employed for agricultural purposes to be considered occupied. Thus, it is plausible that the Bakweri land at issue did not meet this criterion on the eve of independence. The final step did not come until six years after independence in 1966. This is when the indigenous leadership decided in favour of repealing a 1932 colonial decree, the "constatation des droits fonciers sans titre ecrits", which rendered the registration or formalization of collective customary rights in land possible. As evidenced by the foregoing account, the land laws enacted during the first decade following independence in Cameroon were unprecedented and recklessly bold. On this front, paradoxically, the laws pale in comparison to those that were enacted following the referendum in favour of a unitary State, the United Republic of Cameroon, in 1972. It was barely two years after the creation of this state that the country's landmark land law was enacted. Major amendments to the law were effected two years thereafter in 1976. The Land Law of 1974. The groundwork of these laws was prepared a year earlier by Law No. 73-3 of July 9, 1973, which authorized the Head of State to establish rules governing land tenure in the country. With the powers conferred upon him by this law, the President of the Republic at the time, Ahmadou Ahidjo, proceeded to enact the major landmark land ordinances on July 6, 1974. For more, consult the following sources: Fisiy, C.F. (1992) Power and Privilege in the Administration of Law: Land Law and Reforms and Social Differentiation in Cameroon. Leiden, The Netherlands: African Studies Centre. Njoh, A.J. (1998) "The Political Economy of Urban Land Reforms in a Post-Colonial Economy." International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 22 (3). Rep. of Cameroon (n.d.) Land Tenure and State Lands. Yaounde: National Printing Press. Well, so much for my prattle. Take care 'n peace. Ambe J. Njoh, Ph.D., Associate Professor, College of Arts & Sciences, University of South Florida

65

CHAPTER EIGHT: WESTERN MULTINATIONALS MOVE IN From: DIBUSSI TANDE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 8:32 PM Subject: CDC PRIVATIZATION: THE VULTURES ARE CLOSING IN According to the Paris-based publication "La Lettre du Continent" (in its September 16 1999 issue) three multinationals, Del Monte, Chiquita and Fruitier/Dole, are prepping up for a fierce battle for the take-over the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC). "La Lettre du Continent" reveals that on the basis on a contract signed between the Cameroon government and Del Monte in 1992, the latter is now the front-runner for the purchase of CDC's banana holdings. It should be noted that the 1992 contract already assured Del Monte the exploitation of CDC's banana holdings until 2003... According to "La Lettre du Continent", there are, however, divergent views within the Cameroon government on how the sale of the CDC should proceed. The all-powerful Secretary-General at the Presidency, Marafa Yaya, favors a single/bulk sale of all CDC holdings, i.e., tea, rubber, palm oil, and banana. On the other hand, the Minister in charge of public investments, Justin Ndioro, favors a piecemeal approach that would lead to the sale of the CDC's different holdings as separate entities. According to the Paris-based publication, Justin Ndioro views Del Monte's eventual take-over of the CDC's banana holdings as a done deal. "La Lettre du Continent" also reveals that the Dole Fruit Company is interested in the CDC's rubber and tea plantations, including its Palm oil production holdings. Another multinational, "Socfino/Bollore", is said to be interested in these same holdings, with the exception of the tea plantations. The "Chiquita" Company, on the other hand, is determined to give "Del Monte" a run for its money over the purchase of the CDC's banana plantations. The company is also interested in the CDC palm oil production. "La Lettre du Continent" reveals that the official decision on how the CDC will finally be sold off, and which companies would become its proud new owners, will be made at the end of this year. The vultures are definitely closing in on the CDC, with many outstanding issues such as the Bakweri Land Problem, and the role of Cameroonian investors in the sale of the company still unresolved. Dibussi Source: "La Lettre du Continent" no. 336, 16 septembre 1999

From: Lucas T. Tandap [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 3:01 AM Subject: Re: CDC PRIVATIZATION: THE VULTURES ARE CLOSING IN Two very important issues, by my judgment, need to be addressed here and they like in these tow paragraphs: Issue No. 1

66

"La Lettre du Continent" reveals that on the basis on a contract signed between the Cameroon government and Del Monte in 1992, the latter is now the front-runner for the purchase of CDC's banana holdings. It should be noted that the 1992 contract already assured Del Monte the exploitation of CDC's banana holdings until 2003... One understands from this that there is a fait accompli. The deals had been made in 1992 for exploitation up to 2003. The present argument of privatization is just another ploy to give the CDC to Del Monte and legitimize the deal. The intriguing thing is that the government of the Southern Cameroons and thereafter the West Cameroon Government ran the CDC on a profit. It is difficult to understand why the Cameroon government needed to “mortgage” CDC to Del Monte instead of calling on the very Cameroonians who ran this business for decades on a profit to do that again. This an area the PM as the former CDC Boss could have helped! Issue No. 2: According to "La Lettre du Continent", there are, however, divergent views within the Cameroon government on how the sale of the CDC should proceed. The all-powerful Secretary-General at the Presidency, Marafa Yaya, favors a single/bulk sale of all CDC holdings, i.e., tea, rubber, palm oil, and banana. On the other hand, the Minister in charge of public investments, Justin Ndioro, favors a piecemeal approach that would lead to the sale of the CDC's different holdings as separate entities. According to the Paris-based publication, Justin Ndioro views Del Monte's eventual take-over of the CDC's banana holdings as a done deal. This raised the greatest worrying issue. Two people who are total strangers to the issues at stake are carrying out the negotiations for the “sale” or what ever this privatization means. I do not in anyway doubt the professional abilities of Mr. Yaya and Mr. Ndioro but there is something in this situation that one may call “the feeling to the deal.” If serious thought was given to the far-reaching implications of the deal as raised by the Bakweri Land Committee. These two gentlemen should have handled it differently. This is not politics. One would like to believe that these issues are handled as bi-partisanly as possible so as to avoid a situation that would, directly or indirectly “expropriate” the owners of the land on which the tea, rubber, palm and banana plantations are. Suggested action: Whether what is reported above is correct or not, it should serve as a warning for worse to come. The bottom line one would dare suggest, instead of sitting around and watching the vultures" closing in and taking hold whether be they Del Monte or whoever else, but while awaiting the reply from the President to their petition, the Bakweri Land Committee, in the name of all those on whose land there are CDC holdings should submit an injunction to the courts to stop the deals until these other matters are settled. Some call this pre-emptive action! Otherwise we shall stand like the slave trade days when the slaves used to and see bidders make their prices and take them away! Ltandap

Subject: Re: CDC PRIVATIZATION: THE VULTURES ARE CLOSING IN Author: "Steve Andoseh" <[email protected]> Date: 10/14/99 10:11 AM Sometimes, even things you've come to expect give you fresh ulcers. I often find myself, in contemplating all the things that are wrong with Cameroon and Africa, asking with incredulity:

67

do they have to go this far? How much money is enough for Mobutu or for Abacha? How rich do they have to be to give up on the plunder? An attentive reading of the piece below shows us something about the cancerous nature of corruption. Influence peddling Washington style usually involves an intricate network of consultants made up of Washington insiders - the ex generals, campaign managers, etc. – who strike deals with politicians in exchange for mostly indirect benefits. The politicians work for the corporate special interests, but they work as independent contractors - they draw a line (sometimes very fine) between their public responsibilities and their private interests, which they endeavor not to cross. The successful politician, the long time players who accumulate goodwill, are those most adept at knowing where to draw the line, and being careful not to cross it. Not so our tropical players. Ndioro and Yaya are playing the roles of employees for 'the vultures'. They plunge headlong with the cupidity of hourly employees seeking overtime, into the work of the paymaster. There is no line in the sand, no balancing of interests - just full steam ahead until the plug gets pulled. It does not have to be so, but that is how they choose to play it. The reasons for what appears to be a very irrational behavior are perhaps as numerous as they are unsatisfactory, but they should make for an interesting social study. The scholars, such as Stiglitz, who have found corruption to be an engine for development, cannot be thinking of Africa's strain of the virus.

Author: "Gerard Tangka" <[email protected]> Date: 10/18/99 2:12 PM Subject:Re: CDC PRIVATIZATION: THE VULTURES ARE CLOSING IN Sirs, I wonder whether the Bakweri Land Committee has explored the option of legal action. I recall legal action by some stakeholders was able to tie up privatization of the Cotton parastatal. Such a strategy in conjunction with an international PR campaign could possibly force the Cameroonian Authorities and potential buyers of CDC to seek a proper settlement of the dispute. Gerard.

68

CHAPTER NINE: THE BAKWERI DIASPORA COMMUNITY ENDORSES THE BLC MEMORANDUM

Western Multi-national Corporations Vie to Acquire African Agro-industrial Company founded on Land grabbed by Colonial Power from Natives. World Bank and IMF give Blessing to Deal. Multi-national corporations, Fruitiers/Dole, Chiquita, Del Monte and others, are vying to acquire a potentially prosperous Cameroon government-controlled company under an International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment program. Under the program, the cash-strapped government of Cameroon decided to privatize the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) in exchange for structural adjustment loans from both institutions. The government controlled agro-industrial company, grows bananas, tea, rubber, oilpalms and other tropical products for export, on vast tracts of fertile volcanic land seized from natives, the Bakweri or Whakpe people, more than a century ago by German colonialists. Though the corporation has plantations mostly in Southwest Cameroon, it also runs plantations in the Northwest and Littoral provinces. The company is the largest employer after the state. The fly in the ointment of this otherwise classic World Bank/IMF structural adjustment tale is that the land issue has not been settled. In effect, the lands on which most of the agro-industries and plantations eyed by the Western companies are located, some104.000 hectares, was expropriated from the natives, the Bakweri or Whakpe people, by the German colonial administration and its proxies, prior to, and after the Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-85. This conference partitioned Africa among the Western colonial powers. Though the Bakweri have asked that the lands be returned to them since Germany lost its colonies after World War I, their pleas have been ignored. The lands are now in the custody of the Cameroon government, which exploits them without reference to its rightful owners. In 1994 and early 1999, the Bakweri Land Claim Committee (BLCC), on behalf of the people, officially wrote to President Paul Biya requesting that they be included in the privatization negotiations since the land was theirs. Their pleas have been ignored and even as we speak, the multi-national companies are making deals with individual government officials in Cameroon to sell all or parts of the Cameroon Development Corporation to the companies at throwaway prices. This lack of consultation, transparency and accountability is tantamount to sowing the seeds of yet another African conflict. In the face of this attempt by the multi-national corporations and the government of Cameroon, with the blessing of the World Bank and the IMF to deprive Cameroonians in general, and the native Bakweri people in particular, of their land for ever, without their consultation and without compensation, Bakweri indigenes around the world have gone on record as having written a letter to the President of Cameroon expressing their views on this potentially explosive issue. In the interest peace, we the undersigned, have been given the responsibility of making the matter known to the world. To this end, we enclose herewith, the text of the letter to President Biya. We ask all men and women of good will to join in the struggle to protect the interest of ordinary Cameroonians who live in abject poverty and deprivation while their unaccountable leaders and their multi-national corporation partners exploit their heritage before their very eyes.

69

Respectfully, Jack Efase Endeley, President Fako America, Dibussi Tande, Moderator Fakonet Member of the Board, BLCC-USA, Inc. Lyombe Eko, Ad hoc Secretary Member of the Board, BLCC-USA, Inc.

70

THE BAKWERI DIASPORA LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE BLC

A – ENGLISH VERSION October 1, 1999 His Excellency President Paul Biya President of the Republic of Cameroon Unity Palace, Yaounde Your Excellency, LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR BAKWERI LAND CLAIM COMMITTEE. We, Fako elements living in all continents of the world, assembled through the revolutionary technology of the Internet, have the honour to state that we have read a copy of the letter of 3rd March 1999 addressed to your Excellency by the Bakweri Land Claim Committee, (BLCC) seeking redress for injustices perpetrated on our people for more than a century. We would like to state that we unreservedly associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the BLCC as it seeks to regain the lands of which the Bakweri were dispossessed. We whole-heartedly support the approach of the BLCC, which we understand is not against privatisation, per se, but against disposing of the land in Fako division, on which the CDC has its agro-industrial facilities, without consulting its Bakweri owners or compensating them for past use. We whole-heartedly support the BLCC position because we believe that it is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 21 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, which states, inter alia:

1. All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it.

2. In case of spoliation, the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an adequate compensation...

We note that the BLCC has opted to resolve this CDC land problem peacefully, in the interest of national unity, peace and progress of all Cameroonians. We would also like to state that in the interests of the generations to come, each and every one of us would like to stand up and be counted as having contributed, in his or her own small way, to the resolution of this thorny issue. The letter from the BLCC has given an exhaustive survey of the history of how the Bakweri were dispossessed of their land by successive colonial governments, and how these land ended up in the custody of the Republic of Cameroon. We could not have done any better. While we the Bakweri are generally moderates by nature, we would like to put on record that our moderation has limits. History records that the lands in question were the subject of a protracted conflict between the Bakweri and the brutal and inhuman German colonial administration. In effect, the plan of the Germans was to move all the Bakweri into reservations or Bantustans in order to better exploit them and their lands. That move was resisted by force of arms and the Germans renounced the Bakweri Bantustan project.

71

Your Excellency, we would like to put on record that it is our considered opinion that if the privatization of the CDC goes ahead without input from the Fako indigenes on whose land most of the corporation's agro-industrial activities are based, this would be tantamount to postponing resolution of the land problem. Cameroon under your leadership would have missed an historic opportunity to right a longstanding wrong, and sowed the seeds of socio-economic disharmony for future generations of Cameroonians. Our fervent prayer is that the BLCC appeals would be heeded in the interest of peace, national unity and the generations of Cameroonians to come. Please accept, your Excellency, the expression of our highest consideration. For and on behalf of Fako elements around the world whose names are appended to this letter. Signatories ************************************************************************

President of Fako America Moderator of Fakonet

Jack Efase Endeley Dibussi Tande

Ad hoc Secretary

Lyombe Eko ************************************************************************ cc. Chief Philip Mofema Ewusi Chairman, Bakweri Land Claim Committee (BLCC). P.O. Box 124 Buea, Southwest Province BLCC. Hon. Peter Mafany Musonge, Prime Minister of the Republic of Cameroon H.R.H Sam Endeley, Paramount Chief of Buea H.R.H Bille F. Manga Williams Paramount Ruler Victoria Coastal District Traditional Authority All Traditional chiefs of Fako division Southwest Province

72

His Excellency The Secretary General United Nations Organization New York The Managing Director International Monetary Fund, 700 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20431 The President The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 His Excellency, Ambassador of France to the United States Washington DC His Excellency Ambassador of France to Cameroon Her Excellency The Secretary of State of the United States State Department Washington DC

73

B – VERSION FRANCAISE Son Excellence M. Paul Biya Président de la République du Cameroun Palais de l’Unité, Yaoundé Excellence, MOTION DE SOUTIEN A LA COMMISSION DES REVENDICATIONS FONCIERES DES BAKWERI (BLCC) Nous, ressortissants du Fako, résidant dans tous les continents du monde, rassemblés par la technologie révolutionnaire d’Internet, avons l’honneur de vous informer que nous avons pris connaissance de la lettre du 3 mars 1999, envoyée à Votre Excellence par la Commission des revendications foncières des Bakweri (BLCC), laquelle cherchait à redresser les injustices commises contre notre peuple depuis plus d’un siècle. Nous aimerions nous associer sans réserve aux sentiments exprimés par la BLCC dans sa tentative de regagner les terres dont les Bakweri ont été dépossédés. Nous appuyons de tout coeur l’approche adoptée par la BLCC qui, à notre connaissance, n’est pas contre la privatisation de la CDC en tant que telle. Elle est plutôt contre la vente des terres au Département du Fako où se trouvent des installations de la CDC, sans consulter ses propriétaires bakweri et sans leur fournir une compensation pour l’usage antérieur. Nous soutenons pleinement la position de la BLCC parce que nous croyons qu’elle correspond á la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, ainsi qu’à l’Article 21 de la Charte africaine des droits des personnes et des peuples de 1981, lequel déclare, entre autres:

1. Tous les peuples auront le droit de disposer librement de leurs richesses et ressources

naturelles. Ce droit sera exercé dans l’intérêt exclusif du peuple. En aucun cas le peuple n’en sera privé.

2. En cas de spoliation, le peuple dépossédé aura le droit à la récupération légale de sa propriété ainsi qu’à une compensation adéquate...

Nous avons remarqué que, dans l’intérêt de l’unité nationale, de la paix et du progrès de tous les Camerounais, la BLCC a choisi de résoudre ce problème des terres de la CDC d’une manière pacifique. Nous aimerions également indiquer que, pour le bénéfice des générations futures, nous voudrions nous faire entendre et nous voulons contribuer, chacun à sa manière, au règlement de ce problème épineux. La lettre de la BLCC constitue un examen exhaustif de l’histoire de la façon dont les Bakweri ont été dépossédés de leurs terres par les gouvernements coloniaux successifs, ainsi que de la manière dont ces terres sont tombées dans les mains de la République du Cameroun. Nous n’aurions pas pu faire mieux. Bien que nous, les Bakweri, soyons naturellement des gens modérés, nous aimerions faire noter que notre modération connaît ses limites. L’histoire démontre que les terres en question ont fait l’objet d’un conflit étendu entre les Bakweri et la brutale et inhumaine administration coloniale allemande. En effet, les Allemands avaient l’intention de transporter tous les Bakweri dans des réserves ou bantoustans afin de mieux exploiter et le peuple et les

74

terres. Grâce à une résistance par la force des armes, les Allemands ont renoncé à leur projet de bantoustanisation des Bakweri. Excellence, nous aimerions faire noter que nous sommes de l’avis que si la privatisation de la CDC se poursuit sans la participation des indigènes du Fako, les vrais propriétaires des terres où se trouvent la plupart des installations agro-industrielles de la société, ce sera simplement remettre le problème à une date ultérieure. Le Cameroun sous votre commande aurait raté une occasion historique pour redresser un mal de longue durée et aurait établi les bases d’un désaccord socio-économique pour les générations futures de Camerounais. Nous prions sincèrement que, dans l’intérêt de la paix, de l’unité nationale et des générations futures de Camerounais, vous donniez une réponse favorable à l’appel de la BLCC. Veuillez agréer, Excellence, l’expression de notre plus haute considération. Au nom de tous les ressortissants du Fako à travers le monde dont les noms se trouvent ci-joints.

Président de l’association Fako America Modérateur du forum Internet Fakonet

Jack Efase Endeley Dibussi Tande

Secrétaire de Comité de rédaction

Lyombe Eko cc. Chef Philip Mofema Ewusi Président de la BLCC. B.P. 124 Buéa, Province du Sud-Ouest L’Honorable Peter Mafany Musonge Premier Ministre de la République du Cameroun Sa Majesté Samuel M.L. Endeley, Chef Supérieur de Buéa Sa Majesté Bille F. Manga Williams Chef Supérieur de l’Autorité Traditionnelle du District Côtier de Victoria Tous les Chefs Traditionnels du Département du Fako Province du Sud-Ouest Son Excellence le Secrétaire-Général Organisation des Nations Unies New York, USA Le Directeur-Général Fonds monétaire international

75

700 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20431 USA Le Président Groupe de la Banque mondiale 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 USA Son Excellence L’Ambassadeur de France aux Etats-Unis Washington, DC USA Son Excellence L’Ambassadeur de France au Cameroun Yaoundé, Cameroun Son Excellence La Secrétaire d’Etat Département d’Etat Washington, DC USA

76

LIST OF ENDORSERS

Name State/country of residence 1. Adonis Hegngi, Utah, USA 2. Brandon Namanga Mbuakoto, New Jersey, USA 3. Carl Embola, New York, USA 4. Daniel Orume, Ohio, USA 5. Dibussi Tande Illinois, USA 6. Olive Efesoa Washington DC, USA 7. Vekima Efesoa Washington DC, USA 8. Edwin Ndoko Chicago, USA 9. Dorothy Ewusi Minnesota, USA 10. S. Mbua Ngale Efange, Minnesota, USA 11. Ngowo Effange Mbella, Tanzania 12. Francis Likine, Michigan, USA 13. Gustave Efotte, Washington DC, USA 14. Embelle Litumbe New Jersey, USA 15. Embelle Njeuma Ahlijah Texas, USA 16. Efome Emmanuel Elacko, Stuttgart, Germany 17. Makuna Tande Illinois, USA 18. Maureen Molua Denmark 19. Michael Embola, Georgia, USA 20. Christy Lymunga Bodylawson, Texas, USA 21. Eposi Ndobedi Wisconsin, USA 22. Emil Mondoa Delaware, USA 23. Mamua Mbua Jarmon, Texas, USA 24. Fidelis Hegngi Maryland, USA 25. Fike Monono, Washington DC, USA 26. Mbella Ngomba-Maija, California, USA 27. Jack Endeley Illinois, USA 28. Molua Lambe Oklahoma, USA 29. Gwendolyn Monangai New Jersey, USA 30. Humphrey Mosenge Illinois, USA 31. Moki Ndobedi, Minnesota, USA 32. Joan Ewusi Illinois, USA 33. Jimmy Jackai Texas, USA 34. Eyole Lambe Massachusetts, USA 35. Lifaka Matike, Minnesota, USA 36. John Elakie Fale Minnesota, USA. 37. Edward Ekobena, Minnesota, USA 38. Raymond Ekobena, Minnesota, USA 39. Moki Kange, Minnesota, USA 40. Kate Elinge Njome California, USA 41. Divine Nganje Ikome Njie, Ohio, USA 42. Leefita Eyole-Monono, London, England 43. Lloney Eyole-Monono, Bristol, England 44. Isaac Menyoli, Wisconsin, USA 45. Isaac Njeuma, Georgia, USA 46. Irene Molulu , London, England

77

47. Mbango Keke Washington, DC, USA 48. Marjorie Lantum, Tennessee, USA 49. Namondo Nasah-Lima, Georgia, USA 50. Mojoko Endeley Illinois, USA 51. Dorothy Ewusi, Minnesota, USA 52. Paul Ewusi, Illinois, USA 53. Alfred Kange, Minnesota, USA 54. Ernest Litia Molua Denmark 55. Manga Ekema, Ohio,USA 56. Emmanuel Vekima Membwange, Michigan, USA 57. Njuma Eyole-Monono, California, USA 59. Jacob Monono Minnesota, USA 60. Aaron Motoma, New Jersey, USA 61. Gervase Ndoko, Illinois, USA 62. Hannah Williams, Illinois, USA 63. Francis Ndoko Illinois, USA 64. Francis Orume , Ohio, USA 65. Ngomba Gobina, Minnesota, USA 66. Samuel Ndely, Minnesota, USA 67. Sylvester Esuke Nambile, Maryland, USA 68. Sammy Mokeba, South Carolina, USA 69. Samuel Ndip, California, USA 70. Christine Njeuma, Florida, USA 71. Peter Ngale Musoko, Rome, Italy. 72. Efosi Mokeba Louisiana, USA 73. Mbella Mokeba Louisiana, USA 74. Pauline Litumbe, Missouri, USA 75. Metoko Lambe, Missouri, USA 76. Hippolyte Konde Hegngi, Minnesota, USA 77. Peter Keke Washington, DC, USA 78. Peter Ngomba, Virginia, USA 79. Raymond Ekobena, Minneapolis, USA 80. Rueben Ndely New York, USA 81. George Ekema Ohio, USA 82. Siegfried Lifanda, Illinois, USA 83. Meoffi Endeley, Illinois, USA 84. Steve Ndely, Minnesota, USA 85. Stephen Ngeke, Washington, DC, USA 86. Sophie Ngongi, Michigan, USA 87. Pratt Luma, Minnesota, USA 88. Terese Endeley Illinois, USA 89. William Monangai, New Jersey, USA 90. Martin Yangange Musonge, California, USA. 91. Lambe Teke Lambe, Oklahoma, USA 92. Dorothy Efeti Lambe, Oklahoma, USA 93. Likowo Ndobedi, Illinois, USA 94. Ngute Dibonge, Washington DC. USA 95. Martha Embola, New York, USA 96. Protus Endeley Virginia, USA 97. Catherine Luma, Minnesota, USA 98. Mamua Endeley, Illinois, USA

78

99. Emmah Tande, Illinois, USA 100. Ejani Ewang, New York, USA 101. Lydia Namondo Evakise, Maryland - USA 102. Maloke Efimba, New York USA 103. Evelyn Nanyongo Mbame, New York, USA 104. Samuel Moka Effange, New York, USA 105. Stellina Hegngi, Maryland USA 106. Ernest Njaba, Maryland, USA 107. Samba William Monono, Texas, USA 108. Ndolo Embola, New York, USA 109. Sally Diony, New Jersey, USA 110. Mojoko Njie Motoma, New Jersey, USA 111. Hannah Evenye Lambe, Oklahoma, USA 112. Jayne Ngowo Ekema, New York, USA 113. Augustine Kange, Minnesota, USA 114. Abel Njie, New Jersey, USA 115. Julie Njie, New Jersey, USA 116. Jacob Monono, Minnesota, USA 117. Mark Monono, Nebraska, USA 118. Liengu Martin, Maryland, USA 119. Elizabeth Ndely, Minnesota, USA 120. Ndive Lambe, Ohio, USA 121. Eyum Burnley, Minnesota, USA 122. Joseph Wotany, Kansas, USA 123. Charles Gobina, Minnesota, USA 124. Isaac Njoh Endeley, Minnesota, USA 125. Sally Woleta Endeley, Minnesota, USA 126. David Matikke, Tennessee, USA 127. Henold Mokake, Minnesota, USA 128. Stean Nyoki, Minnesota, USA 129. Pamela Ngwesse, Minnesota, USA 130. Vivienne Awah Mosasso, Minnesota, USA 131. Stella Matike, New York, USA. 132. Martha Efange, Minnesota, USA 133. William Nganje, North Dakota, USA 134. Annette Nganje, North Dakota, USA 135. Eposi Westbrook Tokeson, California, USA 136. John Ewange Tokeson, California USA 137. Nalova Effoe, New Jersey, USA. 138. Francis Burnley, Maryland, USA 139. Elut_a Penda, Illinois, USA

79

CHAPTER TEN: REACTIONS TO THE DIASPORA LETTER OF SUPPORT

From: Nkohkwo, Dr Asa'ah T. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 12:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Product of Meanja Estates / Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon). Docta Dibussi: I just returned home from a weekend up North England. This looks like a more serious advocacy. I hope it's not too late to include the support of this CDC Meanja-Muyuka product on the lobby/petitioners list. I promise every possible help I can, if needed. Those memories of my childhood days are too precious to standby and watch shattered. We all lamented helplessly the demise of West Cameroon Buea. But this CDC one Docta, we are at least mature enough to stall it if we put brains in gear. Please mention me as follows: Asa'ah Tazanu Nkohkwo, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK. Du courage! K-on-T, 17/10/1999

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 2:10 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: CDC: Bakweri Letter to Officials Please add my name to the letter. Thanks. Kenneth Fru Ndeh; Mr; Virginia, USA

From: menten-Alim Kumbongsi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 2:52 PM Cc: ""Ndoki Mukete" scarmscnc"@yahoo.com Subject: Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF, Biya create powder keg. As a former management staff of the C.D.C. and indigene of ex-British Southern Cameroons Protectorate, the plea of the Bakweri Land Claim Committee for compensation for the use of their land that was expropriated by the Germans to establish the plantations is one that should unite ALL ex-British Southern Cameroonians in pressing for a fair compensation for the Bakweris. There is no doubt that the people must be compensated. Non-Bakweri indigenes from the former Administrative Divisions of Bamenda, Wum, Nkambe, Mamfe (mostly the Banyangis), and Kumba (mostly the Balondos), with a few people from the ex-East Cameroon, have over the years formed the bulk of the labour force of the C.D.C. based more on their dedication to and

80

hard work. Wages and other benefits have largely accrued to this non-Bakweri work force without which the C.D.C. would not be what it is today. It is not uncommon in C.D.C Plantations including those headed by Bakweri Managers to hire from the non-Bakweri populace. This is the time for ALL those non-Bakwerians in the former Protectorate and elsewhere to stand IN UNITY with the Bakwerians as they demand for a fair compensation of the use of their land without which there would have been no C.D.C. in the first place. Thus I call on the BLCC to wage a full fledged campaign that should include ALL indigenes of the ex-British Southern Cameroons and elsewhere be them at home or in the Diaspora as it demands compensation for the use of their land. The 140th name and on should be those of non-Bakwerian ex-Southern Cameroonians demanding not only for compensation of the Bakweris for the use of their land over the years but RETURN OF THE LAND to the RIGHTFULL OWNERS. However on the status of ownership of the C.D.C. (the majority of the plantations being located on Bakweri land), before any privatization of that second highest employer after the State takes place, I think Dr Susungi has ably articulated on what can best be regarded as the property of the people of the ex-Southern Cameroons and not just the exclusive ownership to the people of Fako. It would just be fair for any compensation paid to the owners to be used in the general development of the territory be it in road infrastructure development or some other common interest area that will benefit the people of the ex-Southern Cameroons. They as a people have made the C.D.C. what it is today and to exclude them at that stage of the evolution of the C.D.C. would be grossly unfair. If it were decided that such funds be used for building a modern highway from Fako through Kumba, Mamfe, Bamenda and the ring road connecting Bamenda, Nkambe and Wum, it doesn't really matter whether the road starts from Buea, Bota, Tiko or Micelle (response to Elsie Effange's concern). Elsie, the Aborigines are in Australia not in Canada. The US and Canada have the red Indians. Menten-Alim Kumbongsi, Ph.D.

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 3:53 AM To: DIBUSSI TANDE Subject: Re: CDC PRIVATIZATION: THE VULTURES ARE CLOSING IN Dear Mr. Dibussi Tande, I support the thrust of the said letter. Could you please add my name to the list. Sam Atungsiri, Basingstoke, UK. Sam Atungsiri, PhD CEng Tel: +44 1256 388772 Principal Design Engineer Fax: +44 1256 388703 System Architecture Group Sony Semiconductor Europe Ltd Mobile: +44 (0)411 335160 The Crecent, Jays Close Viables, Basingstoke Email: [email protected] RG22 4DE UK URL: http://www.semiconductor.sony-europe.com/

81

http://www.semiconductor.sony-europe.com/

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 7:56 AM Subject: Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF, Biya create powder keg. I had earlier on congratulated our Bakwerian folks for taking up this matter and the steps taken by the Diaspora strengthens the case for the Bakweri people who were robbed of their lands. All rightful minded Cameroonians should support their fight for their rights and property. After CDC it would be SONARA. I visited this plant a couple of years ago and was surprised to find that all the guards and lay laborers that met us at the gate and turned us back were French speaking from a specific region of the Cameroon. We have to put an end to this occupation mentality. One sees it in Ayaba Hotel in Bamenda at the Buea Mountain Hotel and name it. Bravo daughters and sons of Bakweri country. Your cause is just and your will prevail. Michael.

From: mtezock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:31 PM Subject: Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF, Biya create powder keg. The issue raised in recent communications must be a conundrum to an administration that seeks to consolidate its support in Fako, sell off the CDC by stealth and without incurring any expensive political expediency. The case for compensating anyone needs more rational thought and presentation. At worst, it could easily be interpreted as muscle flexing by Fako indigenes. One other scenario is that the non-Fako indigenes will invariably fight for spilling sweat and blood in converting erstwhile virgin forests into vast plantations of cash crops. This is an undoubtedly tenuous and argumentative issue with a unifying potential. Arguably, the best scenario will be a conditional sell-off to an agro-industrial multinational with possibly land concessions to able and willing Cameroonians. The challenge therefore is to distil adequate pre-conditions and offer them as suggestions to the administration with the aim of safeguarding the interests of all concerned. There exists a plausible thought that the CDC in good private ownership and exporting through local ports could be the "green" gold of Fako. The status quo is a non-starter as years of neglect, low investment and under performance under state management has deprived the poor workers of fair wages and diminished the economic outlook of the region. We should be bold to embrace change for the opportunities it brings. As an immobile factor of production, it is the prospective buyer that is placing a bet on their cash. The current Prime Minister, himself a Fako indigene and former GM of the CDC, must be aware of all the issues and should be trusted to take an informed decision. To add a sting here, it is blatantly hypocritical of anyone currently employed in a private organisation in the US to be denying the potential rights of Cameroonians to work for a private agro-industrial complex in Fako. The best role for the State is to strike a balance between social justice and economic efficiency and not the ownership of plantations. The argument should rightly be about pre-conditions and not the principle of transfer of ownership. As an economic asset, the marketability of the plantations is a feature that cannot be disinvented in as much as time cannot be reversed to pre-1884.

82

Subject: Bakweri Diaspora Letter Author: "Fred Bebe" <[email protected]> Date: 10/19/99 1:13 PM Please, kindly add my name to the B. D. community letter. Fred Bebe Kentucky, USA.

From: Nfor N Susungi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 3:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF, Biya create powder keg. Mr. Tande Dibussi, I was very impressed with the list of Bakwere intellectuals spread all over the world who are behind the letter which was addressed to President Paul Biya. I do not believe that there is any Cameroonian out there who does not support the Bakwere people in their quest for just compensation for the land which was expropriated from them. Even the politicians in Yaounde who may be engaged in backroom deals to sell the plantation believe that the Bakwere People should be compensated. Peter Musonge himself who will eventually sign the deal on behalf of the government probably feels it more than everybody else because he will have to explain to his own people why he could not protect their interests. But the problem is that the deal will eventually go through, without compensation, unless the Bakwere people start using strategies which work. If you want results I suggest that you the Bakwere Elite should get H.R.H Sam Endeley, Paramount Chief of Buea, H.R.H Bille F. Manga Williams Paramount Ruler Victoria Coastal District Traditional Authority should host a joint conference of Northwest Fons and Southwest Chiefs to discuss and take a common stand on CDC Privatization on the basis of the UN Trusteeship Council Resolution of March 1950. The implication of this resolution is that the creation of the CDC was a trust established under international law for a very specific purpose. This implies that, contrary to what the people in Yaounde assume, the privatization and the compensation question are governed by the international law and not by Cameroonian law. The government in Yaounde cannot therefore privatize it without reference to the legislation under which the trust was established in the first place. I have decided to come back on this issue because I am only interested in results. Life is not fair. It is not enough to be right. You also have to be smart to get what you want. Regards NN Susungi

83

From: DIBUSSI TANDE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CDC Privatization: A Reply to Dr. Susungi Hello, Dr. Susungi, I agree with you that it will take more than a letter from the Bakweri Diaspora community for justice to be done in the CDC matter. And, I am willing to concede that the CDC privatization issue goes beyond the Bakweri land problem, to encompass other more economy-focused issues such as the actual terms of cessation of the company to third parties. As Prof. Anyangwe stated in a previous mail, we need all hands on deck on this one. I however believe that if other Anglophone Cameroonians like you are honest in their support of the BCL actions, and if they really believe that the CDC issue concerns all Anglophones/Cameroonians of goodwill, then they should not remain on the sidelines while BLC or the Bakweri Diaspora community to does it alone. The fact that the BLC or the Bakweri Diaspora can clearly articulate the particular grievances of the Bakweri ethnic group concerning their ancestral lands, does not necessarily mean they are best placed to articulate other aspects of the privatization, such as the international law angle that you bring up in your article; the fact that there is a Bakweri organization focusing on the land tenure aspects of the CDC privatization does not preclude other concerned groups from focusing on other relevant issues of the privatization. Doc., you have been able in previous years to mobilize large segments of the Cameroonian population around certain key national issues, so nothing prevents you today from rallying the Southern Cameroonians around those aspects of the CDC privatization, which you believe the Bakweri land committee is unable or even unwilling to address. No effort is too small here, and the appearance of more centers of pressure will only increase the national and international spotlight on Biya and the international donor agencies. Rather than watching from the sidelines and predicting the (ill)fate that awaits Bakweri demands, let those who insist that the privatization of the CDC is more of an Anglophone problem than a Bakweri one, put their money where their mouth is, let them go ahead and mobilize the national and international community around those issues (other than the Bakweri land problem) that they believe make the sale of the CDC a Pan-Anglophone concern. True, it will be a great idea and a great photo op. to have the chiefs of Fako/SW and the Fons of the NW coming together to speak the same language about the CDC. But this should be a two-way street. The BLC does not have ALL the ideas, neither can we expect the BLC to take all the initiatives on an issue, which as we insist, concerns us all. Have the Fons, for example, ever expressed even passing support for any of the numerous memoranda that their Fako counterparts have written concerning the CDC? Since the privatization was announced, have the Fons taken any action to protect the interests of their subjects who're the backbone of the CDC labor force? If we all really believe that this is truly a pan-Anglophone problem, then what are non-Bakweri Anglophone organizations doing to rally the populace around Anglophone demands on this issue? With the sale of the CDC just around the corner, what is the SCPC for example, doing to sensitize the masses at the grassroots about this impending sale? And the SDF? Has it publicly articulated an official stance concerning the CDC privatization in general or the more particular concerns of

84

the Bakweri? What about the plethora of non-Bakweri cultural/ethnic associations whose members constitute the bulk of the CDC labor force? What have they done so far to make this a national issue? Etc., etc., Doesn't this silence and inaction from non-Bakweri quarters give credence to the widely held belief that this is a purely Bakweri problem? From where I stand, I think that in spite of all the talk about the CDC privatization being more than a Bakweri problem, all those who are in the position to help the struggle, either individually or collectively, have, for better or for worse, simply left the Bakweri Land Committee to its own devices. Should the privatization of come to pass on terms that do not favor Cameroonians, all Anglophone Cameroonians, and not just the Bakweri (who are at least doing something) would be responsible for the unfortunate fate of the CDC. Yes Dr. Susungi, you're quite right that we have to be smart, and not just right, in order to get want we want. Well, the smart thing for other Cameroonians to do is to create numerous points of pressure that would ultimately force the Cameroonian government and international donor agencies to sit up and listen. Without these new points of pressure created by non-Bakweris, the search for justice here would be a Herculean, if not impossible task. The Bakweri have started doing their part. They have brought forth a ray of light. However, for this ray of light to be transformed into a bright rainbow of commitment, action and mobilization, those who claim that they too have a stake in the CDC should jump aboard. Let other concerned Cameroonians add new and stronger links to the BLC chain by devising more innovative and bold protest strategies. If this is truly a Pan-Anglophone fight, then let other Anglophones live up to the challenge and contribute their share to the struggle without waiting for a green from the BLC! Dibussi

From: Efotte, Gustave [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 9:59 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF,Biya create powderkeg. Mr. Susungi: What do the Northwest Fons have to do with Bakweri Lands? Your idea of conferencing with Northwest Fons is very absurd. Don't even bring it in this forum. This whole deal of brokering the CDC lands actually got accelerated during Mr. Ngu's tenure as GM of CDC. What even makes your article below so prejudiced is how you have already concluded that the "deal will go through without compensation". Somehow you've insinuated that if the Northwest Fons are not brought into the process, then it will be a failure. I would suggest you stick with the discussions on southern Cameroons instead of entering the BLCC forum. Gustave Efotte

85

From: canyangwe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:24 PM Subject: [scncforum] Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF Dear Efotte, This outburst is certainly not helpful in anyway. Please let us stay focused. CA

From: Nfor N Susungi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:37 PM SubjectRe: CDC Privatization (Cameroon): World Bank, IMF,Biya create powderkeg. Mr. Gustave Effote, I shall answer your question directly. The Northwest Fons have nothing to do with Bakwere Lands per se. That is the problem concerning the Bakwere people who were robbed 100 years ago by the Germans. But for your information the Northwest Fons have something to do with the CDC as a trust created by the United Nations Trusteeship Council for the benefit of the people of the former United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. That is not only historical fact, it is international law! You see I read history very carefully and I do my research very well and what I have learned so far is that even though I was born in Donga & Mantung Division, I am a beneficiary of that trust called the CDC not just because the CDC is the operator of NDU Tea but because the CDC was intended to benefit all the subjects of the former UN Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. That is why I would like to see all the divisions of the former Southern Cameroons, not only Fako, and not only the Bakwere, become interested and involved in the privatization of the CDC. I assume that you are a Bakwere subject and that your prime interest in this case is the Land. What I am also telling you is that the Bakwere people are also beneficiaries of the CDC as a trust. All those of us who were born in the Southern Cameroons are happy that the Bakwere elite have finally brought this subject to the internet. This implies acknowledgement that the privatization of the CDC is an issue on which the Bakere people now recognise that they need our support and our involvement. Tande Dibussi is right when he talks about people sitting on the sidelines. Of course people will be on the sidelines if they believe that an issue does not concern them. So far the government and the chiefs of Fako have created the impression that only the Bakwere people need to be consulted. That is the reason why the government sent a delegation to see the political leaders of Fako and another delegation to speak to the leaders in Ndu. That is it. Unless the traditional leaders of the former Southern Cameroons stand up and say, wait a minute, this thing called the CDC belongs to us and there are UN Resolutions to prove it, then you can be sure that Yaounde will sell it off and pocket the money. In summary my view is that we are not, and should not be, opposed to the privatization of the CDC. However, we should look for support and strength in numbers so that we can get across to

86

the government as well as to the Bretton Woods institutions that when we read the international law behind the creation of the CDC, the land owners should be compensated and the proceeds of the sale should go to the legal beneficiaries of the trust. If the World Bank and the IMF can satisfy us on these two counts, then everything shall be fine. Regards NN Susungi

From: canyangwe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 11:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [scncforum] Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon):World Bank, IMF Yes, we all must join forces on this matter. It is another dimension of our liberation struggle. The nice letter, couched in very courteous terms, has gone out. So what is our next move? I very much doubt that there will be a reaction from the addressees. As Albert Mukong has pertinently remarked the Republique du Cameroun Pharaoh is a demi-god who will not condescend to dialogue with ordinary mortals, especially us citizens of ex-British Southern Cameroons. I speak with some knowledge. Before, during and after AAC I & II we addressed several communications to Mr. Biya. He did not as much as favour us with the courtesy of a reply of acknowledgement of receipt of our communications. The recent letter on the CDC saga is the third along the same lines. Way back in 1993/4 we had written to and approached Achidi Achu and Mr. Musonge (the CDC GM) on this same issue. We were given a deaf ear. Then the people of Fako formed a committee and under the legal and powerful penship of Professor Kale another letter was addressed to Yaounde. Again nothing came out of it and Yaounde has since proceeded as if we are so inconsequential. The fact is that ex-French Cameroun continues to treat us with callous indifference and indignity. Which is why I asked the question earlier, what is our next move. May I suggest that people with some suggestions as to the way forward should not indicate them over this forum (for reasons we all know) but communicate them directly to the email address of any of the three signatories of the letter.

From: canyangwe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:04 PM Subject: [scncforum] Re: CDC Privatization: A Reply to Dr. Susungi My dear Tande, In my little contribution on this issue I did indicate that the SCPC had earlier taken up this same issue. Achidi Achu was PM then and Mr Musonge was CDC GM. My friends Elad and Munzu would bear me out. And I think you were still home then. As you know, our initiative was given short shrift. So too was the correspondence by Bakweri community. Which is why I suggested that we device alternative strategies. I also suggested that it might not be prudent to air any suggested alternative course of action on this forum but to use your personal email address. Perhaps I am wrong. But I think that sometimes we are too transparent in this our multi-faceted struggle. Dr Susungi talked of the international law dimension of this matter. I intend to make a

87

little contribution in this direction next week. Let us not be pessimistic or sound defeatist. History teachers that a people cannot be abused forever. Together we shall overcome. CA

From: DIBUSSI TANDE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 9:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [scncforum] Re: CDC Privatization: A Reply to Dr. Susungi Hi Prof. Anyangwe, Rest assured that I am not at all pessimistic about eve eventual outcome of the ongoing search for redress and justice concerning the CDC. I know that Justice in this case can only be delayed but not denied forever. It is all a question of organization, commitment and persistence. What I sought to convey in my mail was simply that all concerned Cameroonians strive to contribute their iota to the resolution of the CDC quagmire, rather than expecting the Bakweri land Committee to do it all or to know it all, simply because the said committee has been the pace setter in this most recent effort to sensitize national and international community about some of the key issues surrounding the CDC privatization that the Cameroon government has so far ignore. I am quite aware that the original SCPC was at the frontline of the CDC protest movement back in 1994 when the planned privatization of the CDC was first announced. The SCPC leadership did the best it could back then, given the circumstances. My reference to SCPC's apparent indifference to the issue was about the perplexing passivity of the current leadership at this critical period when it has become evident that the sale of the CDC is imminent. So, unlike in 1994 when the SCPC's actions were complimentary to that of the BLC, there has been a disturbing lack of leadership from that movement on this issue in recent months. These were some of the issues that I sought to raise in my mail, which was not meant to be a cry of distress. Rather, it was a call to arms. Your appeal that the discussion of new strategies and alternative courses of actions be done away from the glare of public (and probably enemy) scrutiny is most welcome. Of course, the key themes of the debate would still be open for discussion in all public fora. The last thing we want to do at this juncture is to inadvertently take the issue out of the spotlight. I am delighted to read that you will soon be shedding light on the international aspects of the CDC problem. I hope that others like Dr. Susungi will also contribute to the debate and in the search for alternative solutions/strategies. Yes indeed, together we shall overcome. Dibussi

88

Author: James <[email protected]> Date: 10/21/99 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [scncforum] Re: CDC Privatization: A Reply to Dr. Susungi Hello, For you to get Susungi's support, then you have to promise that the proceeds of the sale will be used to tar Bamenda ring road thru Nkambe....Otherwise, you are wasting your time. Other strategies might include filling an injunction against the pending sale, but since Cameroon is so corrupt, it might not be a good idea after all...point being, if the case goes to the supreme court and it is ruled in favor for a sale (remember all those judges have been bought), then I doubt if there can be any legal redress that the BLCC can further get from Cameroon... One can also argue that let the sale go ahead and then sue the company who buys the land in their country...for buying "stolen goods"... They wouldn't want the bad publicity.... it is hard to explain what I mean without writing tons of pages but I think you get the general idea, from a lay man's point of view.... Ideally, I'd recommend the BLCC form a corporation and then try to "buy" the CDC at a good price arguing that it is their land.... Well, I'm sure you guys have enough smart men working on it.... James Kwankam

From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]> Date: 10/19/99 04:07 AM Subject: Re: Cameroun: Privatisation de la CDC: Poudriere de Biya ... Mola Eko, I had made a suggestion on two postings to BLCC and in reply to you of the possibility of a court injunction to stop the deal until the land issues is settled. I am under the impression that many on this net seem to be entertaining the idea that the BLCC is against privatization. The BLCC was clear from the beginning that it was not. The argument for privatization should not overshadow that argument for the rights of the Bakweri people to the land. It is an issues of property rights to the land on which the privatization is being carried out. Let me attempt an explanation here and beg my legal friends to help me out if I am going astray. In the present constitution of Cameroon there is no definition as such of property rights. Articles 43 to 45 deal with international treaties and agreements. One would understand that the deal with Del Monte or any other non-Cameroonian enterprise to operate in the country will fall within the domain of an international agreement. One would understand this because there will surely be a clause on the settlement of disputes, etc., and the foreign enterprise would not allow a 100% Cameroonian jurisprudence on the issue since we are dealing with transfer of funds and other items not mentioned or thought of to which I will turn a little later.

89

This imprecision seems to explain the dilemma of BLCC and others in a similar situation. Consequently, there is no statement anywhere as to the benefits that the owners of the land would have as a result of the exploitation of that land for common good as the others may say. By extension and in the spirit of globalization, should the land be exploited and managed in a manner as to infringe on its environmental preservation, what will be the place of the owners to intervene. As a layman, I do not see an attempt to define these and other ramifications on the landowners. The other issue to which I alluded earlier relates to right arising from Intellectual Property Rights. If in the course of exploitation some resources are discovered that fall within the domain of an international convention such as that on biological diversity to which the owners have a right, who will oversee its management? These are only a few examples which I am not sure have been given thought to in this transaction. The right of the BLCC and any other party in a similar situation to demand its rights is also embedded in Article 56 of Chapter X of the present Constitution dealing with decentralization. By this Article ?(1) the State transfers to the regions within the conditions fixed by law, competence in matters related to their economic, social, health, education, cultural and sports development. (2) the law will determine: - the division of competence between the State and the region on matters so transferred; - the resources of the region; - the domain and the special patrimony of the region? (unofficial translation) My understanding here is that prior consultation would have been done with the Bakweri people and others in a similar situation in respect of and consistent with Article 56 of the constitution. I see here a basis for all concerned to challenge a deal they think infringes any of the provisions of Article 56 of the Constitution as well as any other decision or decree that is in contradiction with their rights to peaceful development. In suggesting a court injunction, from my layman’s standpoint, this will be consistent with the people’s constitutional right, if I may say so. This will also send a loud message to other bidders that the CDC is not just there for the taking by the best bidder. LTandap

From: [email protected] Date: 10/19/99 08:36 AM Subject: Re: Cameroun: Privatisation de la CDC: Poudriere de Biya ... Salut Tandap! Depuis quelques jours (semaines) le problème de la privatisation de la CDC a repris la une des mails. Je trouve bien que dans ton mail tu précises que le BLCC n'est pas contre la privatisation de la CDC. Tout ce que je trouve regrettable et même démesuré c'est de faire croire que toutes les parties engagees dans cette histoire de privatisation (Etat camerounais, FMI, BM, Multinationales ) soit ne connaissent pas le problème des terrains considères ou alors ignorent tout simplement les objections de votre comite. Je pense parfois qu'il est nécessaire de se plaindre, et puis de se calmer. Ce n'est pas en écrivant des lettres au Président de la Republique ou bien aux multinationales que les objections déjà émises par les chefs traditionnels seront plus prises en

90

compte. La banane de la CDC est depuis quelques années commercialisées par la multinationale Del Monte. Pensez-vous que cette société ignore le problème de la propriété foncière a la CDC? Alors des mots comme "poudrière" sont pour très déplacées dans le cas actuel. Ce dont j'ai peur c'est qu'à force de faire des déclarations a tout vent vous détruisiez ce que vous voulez atteindre. Une société qui vient prendre la gestion de 104 000 ha (1040 km^2) ne peut ne pas poser la question de la propriété du terrain qu'elle va exploiter. Apres tout c'est pour gagner l'argent qu'ils viennent la et les affaires n'aiment pas les bruits. Ce qui moi m'intéresse c'est de savoir quelle organisation de gestion des terrains (ou des sommes qui seront versées) la BLCC a mise en place pour ne plus créer d'autres problèmes le temps venu. Je cherche à voir un coin au Cameroun ou les millions versés aux populations (comme dommages et intérêts lors de la prise d'un terrain pour utilisation publique) ont été favorablement fructifies. C'est pourquoi ma question de savoir ce que le BLCC prévoit faire. Pour terminer, je dirai encore une fois, ne serait-ce que le FMI et la Banque Mondiale n'ont pas d'intérêt a voir des terrains arraches aux populations continues à être exploites contre la volonté de ces populations. La mise en veilleuse du projet de pipe -line par la BM, n'est-pas la un signe de leur prise en compte des objections des populations et autres ONG? Bonne journée. ndzie.

From: "Lucas T. Tandap" <[email protected]> Date: 10/19/99 07:31 AM Subject: Re: Cameroun: Privatisation de la CDC: Poudriere de Biya ... Salut Germain, I see your point very well and I agree with you that writing to the international community around whose interests the deals are is of little avail. It is like reporting the mafia to the mafia. What I would like to see is the test of our own institutions. You will notice that in my posting I did not refer to the external parties concerned but called on the BLCC and others concerned to seek the protection of the national institutions. I may be naive here but until they are tried and they fail we might be right to say that they do not work. Those who want to buy the CDC do not have to go into the trouble of studying the land laws and property rights laws of Cameroon. They would have taken for granted that the privatizers would have taken care of it for them. From the protest of the BLCC this has not been the case. What do you think?

From: Walts <[email protected]> Date: 10/19/99 06:33 AM Subject: Re: Cameroun: Privatisation de la CDC: Poudrière de Biya... Well;

91

Apart from the facts about the land, the political situation in Cameroon makes this privatization very provocative. The candidates involved are quite suspect in my book. This could be the making of another banana republic. One only has to look at their influence on south and Central America to understand how that works. Soon we'll have some of the usual characters invading the country to protect the ill-gotten plantations... Mark my words, those companies are so powerful the hold sway over the foreign policy in their respective countries. In my book; even if it's required to privatize healthy and profit making companies like the CDC, the government should consider the long-term effects. I mean where are we heading if we start selling the only things we have some control; our food production facilities ? Perhaps it can pay some of those unpaid employees and partially pay the CDC workers by issuing shares in the company; and issue a large portion of the shares to the Bakweris for the use of their land. Anything left after can then be sold off to any national; followed by any multinational that wants them. This will satisfy all those stupid IMF requirements I am not against foreign investment, but we don't need multinational to invest in such things. If they want to invest in Cameroon, let them built such things like an auto plan or a semiconductor factory or any other areas that can use some good investment. If Chiquita et al really want plantations in Cameroon, they can always buy their own land and start one. If something like that doesn't happen, well, nothing will become of the money made from selling companies like CDC. The money will be squandered and have no significant benefits to the country as a whole; just like the oil money disappeared... W Njuh

From: Ernest Molua [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:00 AM Subject: [fakonet] CDC Privatization (Cameroon): World Bank, IMF... Why and How will the "Essingan Pharaoh" reply to protest mails when his clique shred incoming mails that do not deal with potential sources of funds to steal? The "Absentee Pharaoh" and his Mafia team, only deal with issues concerning hard cash that they must lay their hands "by hook or by crook". If they can't lay their hands on such bucks then the project is dead duck. Flash back at the University of Buea Endowment Fund and you catch a glimpse of how desperate these guys are to grab at even a blind man's penny. Please Lord Save us from these Demagogue and his Cohorts. If BLCC does not have an Option B, then let's use pen and papers to the fullest. Its time Fako-Netters start thinking of drafting some letters to the Del Monte, Chiquita etc. the Potential Carnivores of the CDC and inform them on how hot the potato they want to acquire is! What else can a mola say, when he seats and watches helplessly as his potato is been given away by guys who do not even plant it, let alone talk of owning the farmland from which the potato is coming from. I guess they will sell it ruthlessly cheap. Why? Because they will lose nothing selling it for 5 kobo! I can imagine myself selling off a deaf man's Stereo Set. I will give it way for a quarter and order myself a summer lunch from Paris. Ah! Life is so good when you are a Pharaoh in "Rios-dos-Cameroes." You can get away with anything. Especially if you have more Praise-Singers and Tongue-Licking subjects for citizens!

92

What else can a Fakoman say! Help me Lord!

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 7:32 PM Subject: [fakonet] Reality Check An important letter has been dispatched to the President and the prime minister of Cameroun. The prime minister happens an ethnic brother. That introduces certain new factors in the equation, which must be considered in the quest for the restoration of Bakweri traditional lands. A cold analysis is very much in order in this case because this fact of the prime minister’s ethnicity could fudge our thinking and cause us to overshoot in our expectations. We have heard people in this network expressing concern about "embarrassing" the Prime Minister with the subject of this campaign. If we are to shrink from addressing this issue to the prime minister in a forthright, unambiguous manner (I did not say rude) for sentimental reasons then we should just call this whole thing off. It is imperative that we place reasonable limits to our expectations about the prime minister’s power and ability to deliver. If there is an unfavorable outcome to our effort, I shall not be one of those who would be quick to call him names and might in fact defend him vigorously, because I understand the limits of his power. We would be foolish not to calibrate our expectations. These are the considerations: 1) THIS IS NOT WESTMINSTER: A prime minister of Cameroun is not prime minister in the West Minster model, and thus has much less power than say a prime minister of Britain or India. In fact, a Cameroun prime minister has proportionally much less power than the late Dr E.M.L. Endeley when he was chief of government business of Southern Cameroons in the mid to late 1950s. This prime minister, although a very powerful man, does not name the cabinet. He does not have as much power in creating the budget or setting policy. Also, the fact that the job has been rotating between Anglophone appointees from different regions raises important geopolitical questions about its true function in the eyes of the government that created the position. 2) A REPUBLICAN WAS NEEDED TO END THE VIETNAM WAR; A DEMOCRAT WAS NEEDED TO END WELFARE Anyone who follows American politics will understand where I am driving at here. When a government or nation wants to end or initiate a sensitive issue, it is more likely to use a person more invested in that issue than one that is not. Republicans are expected to be sabre-rattling hawks, and will not be accused of being soft on communism if they ended a war… By the same token, a government that wishes to sell the CDC is more likely to use a son of the soil to accomplish such a mission as divesting the CDC. Even if the former man, Prime Minister Achu were in a drunken stupor, I do not think anybody would have convinced him to come within a hundred feet of a political hot potato like the CDC issue because of the lifelong animosity that it would bring him. It is unlikely also that the present Prime Minister would do any such thing either but a government is more likely to twist his arm than to twist the arm of an Achidi Achu. The hope is that an unpopular decision would be that it would be politically more palatable if it is borne by a son of the

93

soil. 3. THE PRIME MINISTER IS NOT OUR PRIME MINISTER This fact is likely to be distressing to those who believe that “it is now our turn to chop”. Fact is, we did not elect the prime minister. He is an appointee of the President of Cameroun. Period. He is responsible to that president and not to us and his job is to follow the agenda of this president and his government. Let that cold fact not escape us. If a serious matter such as this arises which might pit his loyalty to his appointer against his loyalty to his ethnic group, he would be forced to make very difficult choices. Believe me, this matter places him in a very unenviable position. God bless him that he makes the right choice! Those fighting for the restoration of Bakweri lands should therefore be realistic. We must stick to our demands and not allow the presence of the prime minister to soften them. It should not matter whether it is a German colonial governor or a government man for Bokwai that we are dealing with. The job will end, but the lands will remain and the Bakweri people will endure. So, we must be clear. If the demands should place the PM in an untenable position, so be it. It will have to be his decision to take his stand one way or the other. That should not be our problem. That should not in the least affect the way in which we state our case. We should not for one moment allow temporary ego feelings (such as “na we broder”) and little temporary development favours ( like tarred roads) to cloud our judgment about this issue. The annual deluge falling from the skies above Fako will eventually wash away all human works including little fake propaganda radio stations. Folks, they are trying to buy your silence with a little propaganda radio/TV station and maybe a few kilometers of tarred road. Eternal things like land cannot, I mean MUST never be traded for a mess of potage! Has anything been given to us before without a big fishhook? In case the answer to our claim is NO! Then what? Nobody should say we shall cross that bridge when we get there, because that is allowing the other side to out think and to out maneuver us. If we are unwilling to consider plan B or step 2, then let us stop right now and cover our heads in shame. If the Government senses that there is no plan b, it is my bet that they will ignore this and other letters with the contempt that they deserve... and they will not be any different from any other governments that have come before. Cheers. Emil I. Mondoa, M.D.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:20 PM Subject: [fakonet] Re: Reality Check Mola Mondoa, I owe you a bottle of cold palm wine. Your article is one of the best that I've read in this forum -- it's great, well thought of, and simply the truth. I agree with you 164% and I second your suggestions. I also strongly believe that we as a people should vigorously go after "Economic Empowerment" rather that "Political Empowerment". God Bless, and thank you very much. Mola Elive

94

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [fakonet] Re: Reality Check Mola Elive Thank you, Mola Elive. Unfortunately, it is hard to get one form of empowerment without the other. Our ability to move and do freely within the United States, for example, did not come freely but upon the backs and blood of uncountable black folks who stood up against political and economical oppression. Bakweri people should be aware of disadvantages of economic entitlements that come from being the "favorite best behaved pet" of an unscrupulous government, because when the French masses came for Marie Antoinette, they barbecued her favorite poodles and had them for lunch. A trend is already discernible here... already that makes me uncomfortable, but being personally quite comfortable and independent, I cannot make harsh judgments about the scruples of people dying of hunger and deprivation. A port here, a tarred road here, another little favor there, what is the price of such unexpected largesse, I ask? Is it our souls, our silence or our land? To my mind, none of the above is negotiable, and all the so-called acts of generosity are just barely adequate partial payment for past injustices. They will install all these things. The labor that builds them shall come from Francophonie. The management shall come from Francophone and so shall the returns from those enterprises when they are complete. Na lie? See Sonara! CDC would have been the same without its immense complexity and its powder keg politics. Sell the organization to a French or American company, and they would figure out how to fill the brass of the company with francophones too. Brother, there is no escape from politics. Emil I. Mondoa, M.D. #################################################################################### From: Ernest Molua [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:00 AM Subject: [fakonet] CDC Privatization (Cameroon): World Bank, IMF... Why and How will the "Essingan Pharaoh" reply to protest mails when his clique shred incoming mails that do not deal with potential sources of funds to steal? The "Absentee Pharaoh" and his Mafia team, only deal with issues concerning hard cash that they must lay their hands "by hook or by crook". If they can't lay their hands on such bucks then the project is dead duck. Flash back at the University of Buea Endowment Fund and you catch a glimpse of how desperate these guys are to grab at even a blind man's penny. Please Lord Save us from these Demagogue and his Cohorts. If BLCC does not have an Option B, then let's use pen and papers to the fullest. Its time Fako-Netters start thinking of drafting some letters to the Del Monte, Chiquita etc. the Potential Carnivores of the CDC and inform them on how hot the potato they want to acquire is! What else can a mola say, when he seats and watches helplessly as his potato is been given away by guys who do not even plant it, let alone talk of owning the farmland from which the potato is

95

coming from. I guess they will sell it ruthlessly cheap. Why? Because they will lose nothing selling it for 5 kobo! I can imagine myself selling off a deaf man's Stereo Set. I will give it way for a quarter and order myself a summer lunch from Paris. Ah! Life is so good when you are a Pharaoh in "Rios-dos-Cameroes." You can get away with anything. Especially if you have more Praise-Singers and Tongue-Licking subjects for citizens! What else can a Fakoman say! Help me Lord!

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:19 PM Subject: [fakonet] Re: CDC Privatization (Cameroon): World Bank, IMF... Agreed. What we now need are some addresses for us to start a deluge of mail. The US congress these days pays close scrutiny to American projects and businesses likely to cause backlash against American interests in the future. Example, the oil pipeline from Chad to Kribi is going through the wringer right now because of serious concerns about environmental impact and the displacement of people without compensations. Letters must be written to the congress committees, individual congress people as well as the corporations in question. Similar campaigns were conducted by our students in the early 90s using fax-ins. For example, on a given day volunteering individuals could target an executive fax number of Banana Republic Maker Inc. Thirty faxes received on the same day on the same subject are bound to receive attention. Emil I. Mondoa

96

APPENDIX A. THE 1994 BLC MEMORANDUM ON THE CDC PRIVATIZATION MEMORANDUM OF THE BAKWERI PEOPLE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE TO PRIVATISE OR SELL THE CAMEROON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Preamble One's history is part of his present. The Cameroon Development Corporation ("CDC") is the history of Cameroon and of the Bakweri people, in particular. For them, if for no one else, this public institution remains an integral and vital part of their present, a poignant reminder of their long and arduous struggle to reclaim lands which were forcibly expropriated from them during a period of ruthless German imperial occupation (circa 1896-1914); of petitions, remonstrations and representations here and abroad.1 This then is the context within which one can begin to understand and appreciate the shock waves that swept through every nook and cranny of Bakweri society following the recent announcement in the French language news of Government's intention to privatise or sell the CDC. There comes a time when even the most compliant people must rise up in righteous indignation and declare "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". Our silence in the face of persistent and systematic abuse and misuse of our patrimony by others has been mistaken for weakness, our generosity misconstrued as stupidity and our civility dismissed as docility. We, the signatories of this document, the accredited representatives of thousands of Bakweri, on whose rich and fertile soils the CDC has been operating for close to half a century, have been authorised to proclaim loudly and clearly that the dismantling of this core institution will have an adverse and disproportionate impact on the indigenes of Fako Division. Because we believe that this decision is wrong, it must be reversed, now. We reach this painful conclusion after sober reflection and exhaustive discussion among our people and only after they have convinced us that further silence over the continued assault on our individual and collective existence is no longer in our best interests, present and future. On their behalf, therefore, we shall attempt to present the Bakweri case for legal title over ancestral lands which since 1946 were taken over by the CDC on a tenancy for a period and to explain why the Bakweri now stand firm, resolute and united in their opposition to any attempt to dispossess them once again of these lands through legal maneuvers. 1. Privatisation in Context In principle, the Bakweri have no quarrel with the idea of privatisation or sale of companies in which government enjoys majority control since we fully understand the logic behind such an exercise, i.e., the relocation of the management of inefficiently managed parastatals in more efficient hands. We recognise that Government, as the controlling shareholder in these companies, has an obligation to the majority shareholders and the Cameroonian taxpayer to ensure that their tax revenues are not wasted on failing parastatals. Should Government, in the discharge of its fiduciary obligations to these various constituencies, elect to dispose of its majority interests for fair consideration to private purchasers, in order to spare the ordinary Cameroonian the burden of subsidising these white elephants, we offer our full support. 1See e.g., Petition of the Bakweri Land Claims Committee to the Trusteeship council, U.N.O. Doc. T/PET.4.3, Report of the Trusteeship Visiting Mission, 1949; Inglis Commission of Inquiry, Notice No. 90 West Cameroon Gazette No 13, 1st April 1967; the Endeley-Burnley-Mukete Memorandum on Land Tenure and Problems Resulting From Ruthless Alienation of Lands in Fako Division, Sept. 17, 1973.

97

While we believe that the medicine proposed to cure companies like SOTUC, Cameroon Airlines, SOCAPLM may be appropriate for their particular ailment, it is, however, most inappropriate for the CDC. Our strong opposition to the privatisation or sale of the CDC is two-fold. First, we remain unconvinced that as a disciplinary mechanism for correcting inefficiently managed companies, privatisation should be applied to a corporation, which by all objective indicators is efficiently managed. Moreover, even though the corporation has in the recent past gone through a period of severe economic strain, available evidence paint a portrait of an organisation on the rebound. Privatisation or sale, as ordinarily understood, involves the transfer to new owners of all or substantially all of the property and assets of the target company; airplanes, buildings, goodwill and so on. In the case of the CDC, a sale will result in its plantations and lands being taken over by private interests. The problem here is that the CDC does not own the lands on which its plantations occupy and cannot, therefore, transfer what it does not have. Herein lies our second objection to Government's announced privatisation policy as pertains to the CDC. The lands occupied by the corporation were forcibly expropriated by the Germans from their original owners, the Bakweri. With the end of German imperial rule, theses former German Plantation Estates passed tot the successor British colonial administration who held them as native [read: Bakweri] lands. The lands were subsequently leased to the newly-incorporated CDC in 1946 for a period of 60 years on terms which expressly provided for reversionary rights in the Administering Authority upon the expiration of the corporation's lease. That title to these lands never passed to the CDC and that the Administering Authority as well as the successor independent Cameroon Government was acting only as custodian, holding them in trust for present and future generations of Bakweri people, is so well known and memorialised in countless legal instruments and official documents2 that a detailed review is unnecessary. Suffice to say that the Bakweris did not, could not and would not have transferred 395 square miles (104, 000 hectares) of their most fertile parcels of land-- representing roughly two-thirds of their total land area3 -- to the CDC for nothing! Indeed, the CDC itself recognised that it had only temporary use and occupation of these lands and made provisions in its books for annual payment of ground rents. furthermore, the corporation willingly participated in exercises that resulted in the excising from the plantation areas it leased lands for use by land-squeezed indigenous inhabitants without as much asking for compensation. It should be recalled that when the Bakweri dropped their long-standing land claims and gave their consent to the creation of the CDC, it was with the express understanding that while the lands would be developed for the common benefit of all English-speaking Cameroonians, the ground rents the corporation agreed to pay to Government would be used for the exclusive benefit of the Bakweri landowners. In its almost 50 years of operation the CDC has lived up to this mandate, developing the rich natural resources of Fako Division on a scale unprecedented in our nation's history. As we have already indicated, it is a matter of public record that the corporation set aside annually an amount it paid into the public treasury as ground rents though precious little ever reached the Bakweri! Given its unique place in modern Cameroon history, the CDC cannot be, and has never been, equated with an ordinary business enterprise the likes of SOTUC, SOCAPALM, CAMAIR, etc. The CDC is no run-of-the-mill commercial operation but a public institution upon which was conferred an historical obligation to assume a leadership role, in partnership with Government, in the socio-economic development of our nation. In order not to 2See e.g., Article 8 of the Trusteeship Agreement; sec. 4 of the ex-Enemy Lands ( Cameroon) Ordinance, No. 38 of 1946; Ex-Enemy Lands (Likomba Estates) Ordinance, No. 22 of 1947; and sec. 3 of the Land and Native Rights Ordinance, cap. 96 of the 1958 edition of the Laws of Nigeria. 3See Annual Report of Cameroons Under United Kingdom Administration, 1956, p. 60, at para. 302.

98

compromise this mission, the statute setting up the CDC deliberately excluded private shareholders from equity-participation for fear that their single-minded pursuit of profits may push the corporation farther away from the broad social objectives it was by statute expected to fulfill. Thus, the attempt to twin SOTUC or CAMAIR and the CDC is misplaced and confuses their respective roles in our society. Indeed, to treat both as same is to invite ridicule or anger, as the case may be, from those who know what CDC has been to Cameroon's economic development. Clarity and good logic dictate that an ordinary profit-making enterprise like Cameroon Airlines must not be confused with a public institution like CDC whose presence is felt in all aspects of national life. It follows therefore that the criteria employed for rationalising the privatisation or sale of the assets of the typical commercial company do not apply pari passu to the CDC. 2. Direct Effects of the Dismantling of CDC on the Bakweri The point bears repeating that in creating the CDC the colonial administration sought to strike a careful balance between two competing interests: on one hand, to protect the interests of the Bakweri in their lands while, on the other, ensuring that these lands can be properly and efficiently managed for the common good of all.4 It is clear to us that the proposed scheme to privatise the CDC conflicts with the original and enduring policy rationale for its establishment in the first place. Implementing this proposal would amount to a betrayal by Government of the undertakings it made to the community of nations at the time of independence. Moreover, allowing the CDC to be taken over by third parties would signal the abdication of the fiduciary duty Government owes to the Bakweri people in particular and all Cameroonians in general. We note in passing that in the typical sale of assets of a business enterprise, its officers and directors have a fiduciary duty to take into account the best interests of the company, meaning its shareholders. And here, the calculation of 'best interests' is a simple arithmetic exercise as to whether the price offered for the company's stock exceeds its present market value. However, in the case of a public institution such as the CDC, the calculation of best interests gores beyond merely getting the best price for the corporation's stock. Government as the fiduciary, by virtue of its majority interests, has a clear duty to consider the effects of a sale-- short-term and long range, material as well as psychological-- on CDC employees, their families and the communities in which the corporation maintains a presence. Above all, the interests of the Bakweri people without whose lands there would have been no CDC in the first place must forever remain paramount. These interests will surely be sacrificed by a sale which effectively transfers two-thirds of Bakweri land area to private non-native owners whose interests might not be in concert with ours. We have no illusions as to the likely consequences of the transfer of CDC to private ownership. If it goes through, it threatens to alter irrevocably existing land holding arrangements and the pattern of natural resource exploitation in Fako Division. We face the very likely breakup of the large CDC plantations into small private plots under non-native control which may be operated under a different economic development logic. Deprived of, and denied access to, the ancestral lands, generations of Bakweri will never know or appreciate the meaning of land ownership. Given the cramped conditions under which Bakweris currently live-- where the CDC appropriated itself some 400 square miles the Bakweri, all 50,000 of them, are confined to less than 150 square miles of the land space-- a forced exodus of our members to other parts of Cameroon in search of more salubrious land for farming and housing is likely to follow in the wake of the sale or privatisation of the CDC. The likelihood that other compatriots may not be as charitable to these migrant Bakweri as we have been to immigrants who have settled in our 4See Cameroons Development Corporation Ordinance, No. 39 of 1946.

99

communities is very real indeed. This, the risk of exporting the social tensions that have historically characterised settler-native relations in Fako Division cannot be ignored. Can the government in good conscience close its eyes to this imminent threat to public order and social tranquility? 3. International Implications It is tempting to treat Government's announced intention to privatise or sell the CDC as a purely local affair but we believe that it has far-reaching implications that go well beyond our national borders. Progressive development and codification of international law has now reached the stage where collective or individual land ownership by indigenous minorities is recognised and protected as a fundamental human rights violation of which imposes on states a duty of reparation. Cameroon is a member of the United Nations [admitted on Sept. 20, under charter Article 4], a member of the Organisation of African Unity [entered into force Sept. 13, 1963], an aspiring member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and a signatory or party to all pertinent human rights instruments that address this question of minority land ownership rights. For instance the 1966 International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, to which Cameroon became a signatory on June 27, 1984 and which had earlier come into force on January 3, 1976, enjoins by its article 25 States parties from impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilise fully and freely their natural wealth and resources. In the same vein, Article 11 of the 1957 International Labour Organisation Convention ("ILO") (No. 107) Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, and Article 14 of the 1989 ILO Convention (No. 169) on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, revising the 1957 ILO Convention (No. 107), both recognise and protect the right of collective and individual ownership, possession and use, of an indigenous people, such as the Bakweri, of the lands or resources which their members have traditionally occupied or used and further provide for their right to compensation for lands expropriated by Government. [Article 15 ILO Convention (169)]. These international human rights instruments expressly bind governments to "respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values" of indigenous peoples "of their relationship with the lands and territories...which they occupy or otherwise use, and in particular the collective aspects of this relationship." [Article 13 ILO Convention (No. 169)] Although Cameroon was never a party to the 1957 ILO Convention (No. 107) and has not yet acceded to the 1989 ILO convention (169), their provisions have through the passage of time and the consistent practice of States entered through the body of customary international law and are binding even on those nations that have not yet signed them. While we are not in the habit of issuing threats, we wish to serve notice of our resolve to pursue this matter in all fora open to us including, if necessary, the United Nations until we are vindicated. Towards this end, it is our intention to brief and instruct counsel to lodge an appeal on our behalf before the U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities through its Working Group on Indigenous Populations (established by the United Nation Economic and Social Council-- ECOSOC-- in 1982 to promote and protect the human rights of indigenous people). 4. Learning from the Experience of Other Nations The Bakweri are not alone in this struggle to regain control over their ancestral lands. They are joined by numerous indigenous minority groups in other parts of the globe [the Kikuyus in Kenya, the native Indians of North America, the Chiapas of Mexico, the Miskito of Nicaragua, the Mabo of Australia, to mention but a few] who sought restitution of indigenous land whether taken by conquest, in violation of treaty obligations or through

100

"legal" alienation and from whose valiant struggles they draw inspiration. While many of these earlier struggles resulted in the spilling of priceless blood and the loss of lives, we intend to conduct our campaign in a peaceful, non-violent and dignified manner taking our cue from the protracted negotiations between the Canadian Government and its minority native populations. In this regard, we wish to draw Government's attention to recent Canadian legislation pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement among the Crees, Innuit, the provincial government of Quebec, and the federal government. The Cree-Naspaki Act of 1984 leaves basic ownership of Indian lands in the hands of Quebec, but the exclusive use and benefit of the land and its natural resources remains with the Indians. The agreement provides for an Indian entity to administer, manage and use these lands and resources as though it were the owner. Although the provincial government of Quebec owns all mineral and subsurface rights, it must secure Indian permission to exploit these resources and it must compensate the Indians for their use. Confronted with the vexing and sensitive issue of lands expropriated from its indigenous minority populations which threatened to shred to pieces the delicate tapestry of national unity, the Canadian government did not flinch but responded with an enlightened and humane policy carefully crafted to strike a happy balance among competing subnational interests. Because of our firm belief that our Government can do better, we now urge it to rethink its announced policy to privatise or sell the CDC drawing heavily from the recent experiences of Canada and Mexico (with respect to the Chiapa Indians). 5. Framework for Constructive dialogue between Government and the Bakweri We would remiss in our duty and open to charges of unpatriotism if we ended this memorandum without advancing some concrete proposals to assist Government in formulating a wise and sound decision on the question of privatising the CDC. It is our belief that no government committed to the principles of justice, fairness and equality can, at this stage in the development of international human rights law, proceed by fiat to disposes a distinct segment of its population of two-thirds of its total land area without even the courtesy of discussing the matter with the leaders of that ethnic group. As a consequence, we insist that as a first step Government should meet with the accredited representatives of the Bakweri people-- and we stress accredited spokesmen not externally-imposed interlocutors out for their own selfish mercenary interests-- to work out the modalities of transferring the assets and property of the CDC, if it must come to this, to the rightful owners of the land.

Second, there must be explicit acknowledgment by Government that the lands occupied by the CDC having been declared native lands by virtue of the Land and Native

Rights Ordinance, the Ex-Enemy Lands (Cameroon) Ordinance, and the Ex-Enemy Lands (Likomba Estates) Ordinance, reverted to the indigenous natives of Fako Division in 1946 and ownership legally vested in them. Third, because the CDC is so vital to our economic life, it must be maintained at all costs. In this vein, we propose a creative and enlightened partnership between the owners of the land on which the corporation operates and the providers of finance capital without which it would not be possible to run a modern, technologically-sophisticated agro-commercial complex like the CDC. If for economic reasons private cash capital has to be attracted (one of the ostensible reasons for privatisation), it should be on terms which recognise the ownership of land as a distinct variable which together with the cash make plantation agriculture possible. Therefore, landowners deserve ground rent compensation in much the same way as the CDC was liable to pay ground rents for the use of the land. Furthermore, if the excuse for establishing a statutory public corporation in 1946 was the lack of available indigenous personnel competent to obtain maximum benefit from the erstwhile German estates, that excuse is no longer tenable. There is now a surfeit of trained Fako indigenes from which to recruit competent technical and managerial experts who can profitably run the CDC.

101

Finally, since a renascent CDC will be jointly-owned and managed by the landowners and capital providers, it follows logically that the former must be represented on the policy-making organs of the corporation in numbers sufficient to reflect their equal contribution. History teaches us that only a significant presence of landowners in policy-making organs can prevent the ruthless discrimination against indigenes in matters of employment and promotion that has been the corporation's past practice. DONE AT BUEA THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR

ON BEHALF OF THE BAKWERI PEOPLE H.R.H. SAM M. L. ENDELEY H.R.H. BILLE F. MANGA WILLIAMS Paramount Chief of Buea Paramount Chief of Victoria

ON BEHALF OF THE BAKWERI LAND COMMITTEE

CHIEF PHILIP MOFEMA EWUSI

ON BEHALF OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE

DR. S.N. LYONGA, Chairman PROF. NDIVA KOFELE KALE, Secretary

102

B- DIASPORA LETTER TO FAKO ELITE AN APPEAL TO THE LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF FAKO DIVISION FROM THE FAKO COMMUNITY IN THE DIASPORA December 27, 1999 INTRODUCTION In 1994, the people of Fako division, speaking through the Bakweri Land Committee, vowed to ”pursue relentlessly at all levels” their 50-year quest to oblige the Cameroon government to recognize their historic, cultural and legal rights vis-à-vis their ancestral lands currently under the control of the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC). Today, five years later, the government has largely ignored the demands of the Bakweri people. As we write these lines, the final phase of the negotiations for the sale of the CDC is underway, with a solution of the Bakweri Land Problem nowhere in sight, and with the interests of the people of Fako not being taken into account by their own government. This is therefore a deciding and defining moment for the Bakweri people; the culmination of a struggle started more than half a century ago by prominent sons and daughters of Fako division. At this juncture in our history, we must once again rise as one united people to unequivocally demand that justice be done. Once more, we, the people of Fako division both at home and abroad, have been thrust with a historic opportunity to right the wrongs of the past, to ensure that the future of our children is assured. In this regard, Fako elements in the Diaspora are appealing to the people of Fako division and to the traditional, political and other leaders of the division, to rally around the Bakweri Land Committee in its final stance against this brazen attempt to auction our heritage. The purpose of this letter of appeal is, therefore, to communicate our feelings and thoughts on how, you the people and leaders of Fako division should proceed on this very sensitize and important matter TO THE BAKWERI LAND COMMITTEE At this critical juncture in the BLC’s existence, tragedy has struck deep within your ranks with the untimely death of its valiant Chairman and founding member, Chief Philip Mofema Ewusi. We in the Diaspora community urge you, the members of the BLC, to turn this tragedy into triumph. We call on you to work with key personalities in Fako division to convene an extraordinary BLC summit that will bring together all the active forces of the division in the coming months. This summit will have as its goal to:

I. Map out a new strategy for the BLC that will take into account recent developments regarding the planed privatization of the CDC;

II. Elect a new BLC executive bureau that will put this new policy into action; III. Set the ground rules for co-opting into the BLC, historians, legal experts, elders, and

other individuals with an in-depth knowledge of the history of Fako division, the Bakweri land problem and of the CDC itself;

103

IV. Adopt a strategy of inclusion that will seek to involve not only the elite population of Fako in the Bakweri land struggle, but will also include Fako natives from all walks of life and from every social stratum, as long as they have valid proposals to make;

V. Set in motion an effective and credible sensitization campaign aimed not only at the Cameroonian public, but also at the Western multinationals vying for ownership of the Cameroon Development Corporation.

TO FAKO TRADITIONAL RULERS The time has finally come for you, our traditional rulers of all stripes and of all classes, to use the venerated chieftaincy institution to stand up for your ancestors and for your people. This is a unique opportunity and a historic moment to use your traditional authority to truly rally Fako indigenes in the four corners of the division- from Bova to Bimbia, from Vasingi to Victoria- around the calls for restitution and compensation for a hundred years of persecution and dispossession of the people of Fako. Such a mobilization will be a fairly seamless process if it is done within the auspices of the Fako Divisional Conference of Traditional Rulers. We urge you to use every single communal occasion organized within your various clans and chiefdoms, to sensitize your subjects about the impending loss of their ancestral lands for good, and to convince them to add their voices to that of those who’re leading the struggle for compensation and restitution. It is our fervent hope that you will heed to this Diaspora appeal and ensure that a fountain of hope springs forth from what is slowly appearing to be a pool of despair. TO THE POLITICAL PERSONALITIES OF FAKO Your role as political leaders cannot be overstated here. By virtue of your prominent position in the political life of our division and country, you are among those who are privileged to deal directly with, and even exert influence on, the national government, which is currently in charge of negotiations to privatize the CDC. Whether you are of the opposition or with the ruling party, this should be one of those very rare moments when you must rise above your partisan and ideological differences to join hands in a laudable bid to protect the vital socio-cultural and historic rights of your people, the people of Fako division. With a vigorous, non-partisan and united response on your part, the Bakweri land issue will be transformed from a largely regional/provincial issue, into a truly national one. In the process, our struggle will get the national exposure it so desperately needs at this critical juncture, along with the indispensable support of all Cameroonians of goodwill. Without doubt, it is only through such a national groundswell of sympathy that the people of Fako will be able to get an appropriate response from the powers that be. Once again, this is not a partisan issue on which political leaders should play political chess games; it is the very future of our division, of our ancestral lands, and of our yet unborn progeny that is at stake here. The impact of whatever you do (or not do) today will be felt for decades, if not centuries to come. Just as the valiant struggle of Bakweri leaders against the British back in the 1940s put the Bakweri Land Problem on the national and international map forever, it is your turn to respond to the call of destiny and history and find an ultimate solution to this longstanding problem. A TIME FOR FAKO UNITY

104

Dear chiefs, elites, leaders, sons and daughters of Fako, if the reports from Europe and America are to be believed (and there is no reason to doubt our sources), the final sale of the CDC is close at hand, with the official announcement of its sale just around the corner. This is therefore the time for us all to cast aside all self-serving actions; it is a time to refrain from determining public policy on the basis of personal animosity or personal affinity. The issue at stake here is our collective survival as a people, and we will overcome this hurdle only through a collective effort. Without doubt, this is the time for true Fako unity. History will be very unforgiving if you turn your backs on this clarion call for unity to adopt divide-and-rule policies at this critical time

PERMANENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE FAKO DIASPORA The past six-months have proven beyond any doubt that it would be foolhardy for the Fako elite in general and the BLC in particular, to leave out the Fako Diaspora community as the search for an acceptable solution to the intractable Bakweri land problem moves into higher gear. The recent Internet debates have clearly shown that the Diaspora community should be made an integral part of the BLC struggle primarily because of the community’s access to rare and indispensable documents on the history of the German expropriation of Bakweri lands, on the creation of the CDC, and on its contractual obligations towards the people of Fako. Another key reason in support of direct Diaspora involvement in the BLC campaign is that members of this community have direct access to the companies currently involved in ongoing negotiations for the sale of the CDC. This is a factor whose importance cannot be downplayed, given the recent trend among western multinational companies to shy away from regions and countries where they may come in conflict with the local population. The recent hesitation of two major oil companies involved in the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project is a case in point. The BLC struggle should therefore be a two-pronged campaign carried out simultaneously in Cameroon, and in Europe and America. The Fako Diaspora community is best placed to carry out the BLC’s international campaign to fruition. We therefore urge the Fako elite to open clear and effective lines of communication with the Diaspora community, and that any relevant information obtained on either side of the Atlantic be made available to the appropriate persons/organizations leading the fight for the rights of our people. A TIME FOR BROAD-BASED ALLIANCES For many years now, the people of Fako have largely adopted a do-it-alone policy in their search for a fair and just solution to the Bakweri land problem. In the process, they have shunned and even been openly hostile to non-indigenous groups and persons who have attempted to get involved in their struggle. Whatever the validity of such a policy in the past, the current socio-political dynamics in Cameroon show that continuing with such a policy today is bound to lead to failure. Consequently, the Fako elite should start courting the political and traditional leaders from other parts of the country. Our leaders should now be willing to interact on this matter with all Cameroonians of goodwill, irrespective of their ethnic origin. Our elite should be open-minded enough to listen to, and even adopt, the views and proposals from non-indigenous individuals and groups, so long as these proposals are in line with the aspirations of the people of Fako.

105

In this regard, a clear-cut strategy championed by a revived BLC should aimed at lobbying local and national politicians, legislative authorities, the leaders of all the key parties in Cameroon, the national media, etc. It goes without saying that an effective lobbying of all key segments of the Cameroonian nation will only increase the chances of an outcome that would be favorable to the people of Fako. Time is running out, but such a national lobbying effort can still be done. TO THE PEOPLE OF FAKO The issue of our unjustly occupied lands is not just a concern of our chiefs, political leaders or even of the BLC. It is the concern of every single Bakweri man, woman and child in every city or village in Fako and around the world. The BLC and our leaders only have strength if we give them that strength through our collective and unconditional support. Let us all be in permanent contact with the BLC, and our traditional and political leaders as the search for a solution to the Bakweri Land Problem continues. Let us support them with ideas and suggestions, and let us offer our help whenever it is needed. Let us criticize our leaders only in constructive ways when we think things could be done better. Let us all be united in ensuring that justice is done for the sake of our descendants. CONCLUSION A most appropriate conclusion to this plea from Fako elements in the Diaspora appeared in Editorial Page of the January 1995 issue of “Fako International”, and was coincidentally written in reaction to the 1994 BLC memorandum on the planned privatization of the CDC:

“The seriousness and danger of the current situation must be understood by all well meaning Fako elements and those Cameroonians who are in favor of peace and fairness. No effort can be spared in

this struggle and many are already in the fight. Some have joined the fray, only recently, as an opportunity to redeem themselves of past ineptitude and irresponsibility. The change is most

welcome. Others, still, have offered only lip service as they contemplate whether to risk positions of comfort. And then there are those who are to be seen nowhere in the frontlines. Let it be known to all

that at some future rendezvous, in our lifetime, there will be a count of those who stood for justice and progress in difficult times. And that is a promise. For as there is a difference between night and day, so there is a difference between right and wrong, truth and deceit, community investment and

thievery, community happiness and suffering, progress and chaos” We, the sons and daughters of Fako living in the Diaspora, are waiting with bated breath and hope that your actions would result in justice being done. Our future is embedded in the sacred work that you, the leaders and people of Fako, should now undertake. Please, do not disappoint us. We wish you all the best in all your endeavors on behalf of the people of Fako.

LYOMBE EKO, Maine- USA NJOH ENDELEY, Minnesota-USA EMIL MONDOA, Delaware-USA DIBUSSI TANDE Illinois-USA

On behalf of the Fako Diaspora Community

106

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY “Petition of the Bakweri Land Committee, Cameroons under British Mandate.” Africa 18(4), October 1948, Pg. 30 “Petition of the Bakweri Land Claims Committee to the Trusteeship Council.” U.N.O. Doc. T/PET.4.3, Report of the Trusteeship Visiting Mission, 1949. "Petitions from Bakweri Land Committee. Summary of the Findings and Recommendations of the Investigating officer and the Preliminary Observations of the Nigerian Government." Lagos, 1949. “The Endeley-Burnley-Mukete Memorandum on Land Tenure and Problems Resulting From Ruthless Alienation of Lands in Fako Division.” Sept. 17, 1973. Ardener Edwin; Ardener, Shirley; Warmington, W.A. Plantation and Village in the Cameroons: Some social and Economic and Social Studies. London: Oxford University Press, 1960 _____________ Kingdom on Mount Cameroon: Studies in the History of the Cameroon Coast 1500. Cameroon Studies, Vol. 1. Oxford: Berghan Books, 1996 Bakweri Land Committee. “Memorandum of the Bakweri People on the Presidential Decree to Privatize or Sell the Cameroon Development Corporation” Buea: July 27, 1994 ____________ “Memorandum Dated 3rd March, 1999 to H. E. Paul Biya Concerning the Privatization of the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC).” Buea: March 3, 1999. Duckworth, E. H. 1950. “In the Land of Banana Plantations, Victoria Division, Cameroons.” Nigeria, No. 35, pp 273-343 Bederman, Sanford H. “Plantation Agriculture in Victoria Division, West Africa, West Cameroon: An Historical Introduction.” Geography, vol. LI, no. 4 (November, 1966: 354-356.) ___________ The Cameroons Development Corporation; Partner in National Growth. Bota, West Cameroon: Cameroons Development Corporation, 1968. ____________; Delancey, Mark. “The Cameroon Development Corporation 1947-1977: Cameroonization and Growth” in An African Experiment in nation building: the bilingual Cameroon Republic since Reunification edited by Ndiva Kofele-Kale. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980: 251-278 Cameroon Anglophone Movement. “C.A.M. Resolution on the Privatization of the C.D.C.” Bamenda, Southern Cameroons, Cameroon, 1994 Cameroon Development Corporation. “Cameroons Development Corporation Ordinance, No. 39 of 1946.” Victoria, 1946 ____________ Annual Report of the Cameroons Development Corporation. Bota, Victoria. Cameroons Development Corporation. Victoria, 1950-1959

107

DeLancey, Mark. “Health and disease on the Plantations in Cameroon, 1884-1939” in G. W. Hartwig and K. David Patterson (eds.) Disease in African History. Durham: Duke university press, 1978. DeLancey, Mark. “Plantation and Migration in the Mount Cameroon Region” in Mainz, Hase and Keohler (eds.) Kamerun, 1974. Dikoume, Cosme; Lippens, Phillipe. Les Problèmes Fonciers au Cameroun Oriental. Douala, Institut Panafricain pour le Développement, 1970 Efange, P. M. « The Land Debate in Fako Division. » in Jimbi, Vol.1, no. 001 – March 1997 Enonchong, Nelson. "Jurisdiction Over Disputes Relating to `National Lands' in Cameroon." African Journal of International and Comparative Law. Volume 11 #1 March, 1999. pp. 100+. Epale, Simon Joseph. Plantations and Development in Western Cameroon, 1885-1975: a study in agrarian capitalism. New York: Vantage Press, 1985. Goodridge, Richard A. "`In the Most Effective Manner'? Britain and the Disposal of the Cameroons Plantations, 1914-1924." International Journal of African Historical Studies. Volume 29 #2 1996. pp. 251-277. “Inglis Commission of Inquiry,” Notice No. 90 West Cameroon Gazette No 13, 1st April 1967 Kale, Paul Moyongo. A Brief History of the Bakweri. Lagos: Salvation Army, 1939 Konings, Piet. "Plantation Labour and Economic Crisis in Cameroon." Development and Change. Vol. 26 no.3 July, 1995. pp. 525-549. ___________. "Privatisation of Agro-Industrial Parastatals and Anglophone Opposition in Cameroon." Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics. Vol. 34 no. 3 1996. pp. 199-217 Meek, Charles Kingsley. Land Tenure and Land Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons. Colonial Office, Colonial Research Studies no. 22. London, H. M. S. O., 1957 Michel, Marc. « Les Plantations allemandes du mont Cameroun. » Revue francaise d’histoire d’Outre-Mer 57 (1970) : 183-213. Michel, Marc. Les Plantations allemandes du mont Cameroun. Paris: Société d’éditions géographiques, maritimes et coloniales, 1928 Mitchell, Nicolas P. Land Problems and Policies in the African Mandates of the British Commonwealth. Louisiana Studies, no. 2. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1931 Molua, Helen. How Colonization Underdeveloped the Bakweri: A Case Study of the Bakweri Land problem 1884-1961. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Ibadan, 1985 National Archives Buea. “Petition from Sama Ndi and the Bakweri Land Committee to the Trusteeship Council 1952,” File Qf/a 1952/1

108

Rudin, Harry R. The Germans in Cameroon 1884-1914. London: Archon Books, 1968. Scheppler, Robert Henry. Reichstag Criticism of German Colonial Policy: Cameroon, 1884-1907. Masters Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1964. Tande, Dibussi. “1884-1994; the Bakweri Land Problem” Fako International vol. 1, no. 2, April 1994 ____________ “The Bakweri Land Problem: What Needs to Be Done.” Fako International, vol. 1, no. 2, April 1994

109

THE BAKWERI LAND PROBLEM AND THE · PDF fileTRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL IN 1951 BY ... event of the planned privatization of the Cameroon Development ... Privatisation of the Cameroon Development

Documents