The 11th February 1961 (re)unification plebiscite was organized pursuant to UN resolution 1352xiv; requiring Southern Cameroons to accede to independence either by joining Nigeria or la Republique du Cameroun. Sequel to this, trusteeship council resolution 2013xxvi of 31st May 1960 requested Britain, amongst other things, to take steps in consultation with the authorities to ensure that the constitutional arrangements that would have to be implemented following the outcome of the plebiscite.
Prior to the campaigns, JN Foncha and President Ahidjo held a series of meetings to discuss constitutional issues. These meetings resulted in three signed documents titled; a communiqué, joint declaration and a joint communiqué; spelling out clearly the formation of a federation.
The United Nations document titled THE TWO ALTERNATIVES which was widely circulated before the plebiscite, interpreted the implications of the two options. It contained a joint declaration by JN Foncha and Presided Ahidjo that made it clear to the people of Southern Cameroons that, in the event of their opting for la République du Cameroun, they would be forming a federation of two States of equal status. These undertakings variously by the United Nations, la République du Cameroun and Nigeria constituted the basis on which Southern Cameroons voted to join la République du Cameroun.
In a December 1994 speech, JN Foncha said; “…I can state here and now that the People of Southern Cameroons would never have voted in favour of unification if it had not been for the assurances given that the resulting union would take the form of a federation…”
President Ahidjo’s undertaking; Independence by joining la République du Cameroun.
As usual, President Ahidjo acted a master dribbler; playing with emotive words and making no concrete commitments. In a series of joint communiques he cosigned with JN Foncha, he was evasive and non-committal; making very general statements void of concrete details; and a total lack of clarity.
- The representatives of la République du Cameroun and of the Government Party of the Southern Cameroons vigorously reaffirm the desire of their peoples to be reunited in one Nation. This is a highly subjective political statement.
- They wish to use every available means to bring to a successful conclusion the task of national reunification which they have set themselves. Every available means; by hook or by crook; including lies, treachery, deceit, manipulation; unorthodox and unconstitutional means.
- In the event of the result of this plebiscite being in favor of Reunification, the application of this reunification on a federal basis allowing for the particular conditions of each group, could not be automatic but gradual. This statement is ambiguous and lacks clarity.
- In the event of the Southern and Northern Cameroons voting in favor of reunification, those entrusted with the responsibility of the affairs of the Unified Cameroons would, through mutual agreement, specify the manner in which the populations of the Cameroons would be asked to express their opinion on the Federal Constitution. ‘Those entrusted with the responsibility’; strategy to capture a few elites and truncate the desire of the people.
- A federal Court of Justice will have as its purpose to unify judicial systems and to act as the Highest Court of Appeal of the Federal State.
- That immediately after the plebiscite and in the event of the people voting in favour of unification with the Cameroun Republic, a Conference should be held attended by representatives of the Cameroun Republic and the Southern…that this Conference at which representatives of the Trusteeship Authority and possibly those of the United Nations would be present, would have as its aim, the fixing of time limits and conditions for the transfer of sovereign powers to an organization representing the future Federation. ‘And possibly those of the United Nations would be present’; why then did he oppose paragraph 6 of resolution 1608xv that required UN’s involvement? This was treacherous and deceitful. What conditions were agreed on?
Britain Plays Pontius Pilate on President Ahidjo
The British authorities noticed that President Ahidjo’s pronouncements did not stand the test of scrutiny and played ‘Pontius Pilate’ on la République du Cameroun by warning that the offer was a wild goose chase; “… Insofar as the implications of joining the independent Republic of the Cameroun are concerned, JN Foncha, in his capacity as leader of the political party advocating joining the independent Republic of Cameroun, had consulted directly with the President of the Republic of the Cameroun on the terms upon which the Southern Cameroons might be united with the Republic if the result of the plebiscite should be in favour of such a course. Her Majesty’s Government, as Administering Authority, had no several occasions enjoined upon those concerned the need for clarification of these terms.
A number of meetings had taken place in Yaounde, Douala and Buea in which Foncha and his colleagues discussed this question with President Ahidjo and members of his Government. These meetings have resulted in two joint communiques.” President Ahidjo was being more formal with Britain and the UN; but playing with words over JN Foncha.
The UN plebiscite officers, and indeed the UN secretariat, could not have been oblivious to British mistrust for President Ahidjo.
…Endorses Nigeria’s Offer
Britain directly endorsed Nigeria’s offer as secured and guaranteed; “…the implications of joining the Federation of Nigeria had been made clear in undertakings given by Nigerian Ministries. Trusteeship would be terminated at an early date and the Southern Cameroons would join the Federation with the status of a fully self-governing Region equal in all respects with the other Regions in an Independent Nigeria.” Though not indifferent; Nigeria was not desperate. Sir Abubakar Tafale Balewa’s (Nigeria PM) warning was under the guise of brotherliness;
“…If you vote against Nigeria, I cannot see how you can avoid living a life of poverty and hardship, and under the constant shadow of violence which the government cannot control. You will be putting yourself under a country which has different laws and a completely different attitude towards life.”
An examination of the respective offers demonstrates that OPTION 1 (Nigeria) would lead to an ‘autonomous’ personality while OPTION 2 (la République du Cameroun) confers an independent sovereign personality.
The fact that no further legal exercise was spelt out with respect to Nigeria, meant the plebiscite options were effectively; Do you wish to integrate or to secede from Nigeria; because a vote for la République du Cameroun would have met the hurdle of a ‘quadripartite’ negotiation conference to agree on the terms of the union; thus constituting a free association.