Life teaches us that a lasting solution often requires returning to the circumstances in which a problem arose. For Cameroon, addressing the conflict in the North-West and South-West requires an honest examination of the constitutional relationship established on 1 October 1961 and the transformations that followed.
This anniversary should invite remembrance, reflection and responsibility. We must honour the aspirations of those who sought freedom, acknowledge the suffering of those living with the consequences of unresolved grievances, and summon the courage to negotiate a peaceful future.
The history of Cameroon cannot be fully written while the history of Southern Cameroons remains incompletely understood.
Historical accuracy is essential to this conversation. On 1 October 1961, British Southern Cameroons attained independence by joining the already independent Republic of Cameroon. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1608 (XV), adopted on 21 April 1961, provided for the termination of trusteeship on that basis. The resulting constitutional arrangement was a federation comprising East Cameroon and West Cameroon. Southern Cameroons did not first emerge as a separate sovereign republic before entering that federation. This distinction clarifies the historical foundation of the union without diminishing the significance of the day.
For those commemorating Southern Cameroons’ independence, October First represents the end of colonial trusteeship and the hopes invested in a new political relationship. For those celebrating reunification, it represents the coming together of territories separated by colonial administration. These perspectives need not make their adherents enemies. They demand a shared willingness to examine what was promised, what was established and what subsequently changed.
The central question is whether the institutions governing that relationship have adequately preserved the dignity, participation and distinctive traditions of the communities that entered it.
The Constitutional Transformation
The constitutional transformation must therefore be stated precisely. Cameroon became the Federal Republic of Cameroon in 1961, comprising two constituent states. Following the referendum of 20 May 1972, a new constitution established the unitary United Republic of Cameroon. Law No. 84/1 of 4 February 1984 subsequently changed the country’s name to the Republic of Cameroon. The 1984 amendment did not make Cameroon a republic for the first time; it renamed an existing republic.
These changes concern more than constitutional terminology. Moving from a federation to a unitary state changes where authority resides, how communities participate in government, and which institutions protect their interests.
The existence of a constitutional amendment is a legal fact. Whether the resulting arrangement has earned enduring public confidence is a further political question. Responsible national dialogue must examine both, distinguishing established facts, competing legal arguments and lived grievances.
A nation cannot resolve such questions simply by declaring that they are inconvenient.
Trust and the Obligations of Union
In any enduring relationship, confidence grows when commitments are honoured. When trust deteriorates, earlier promises acquire renewed importance. A marriage strained by disappointment may return to the assurances made at its beginning. Business partners who lose confidence may revisit the agreement upon which their enterprise was founded.
A constitutional union carries far greater public responsibilities, but the lesson remains relevant: unfulfilled expectations do not disappear merely because time has passed.
Development and fair treatment can strengthen attachment to a shared country. Exclusion and injustice can reopen questions that institutions were expected to settle. National unity must therefore be sustained through conduct: equal citizenship, meaningful participation, reliable justice and respect for cultural identity.
This obligation belongs to the whole nation. Anglophone grievances deserve serious consideration without hostility towards Francophone citizens. Ordinary Francophone Cameroonians should not bear collective blame for decisions they did not make. Equally, Anglophone communities should not face collective suspicion because some people have taken up arms.
We must reject the dangerous habit of turning political disagreement into communal guilt.
An African Legal Foundation for Dialogue
There is already an important African legal foundation for constructive engagement. In its 2009 decision in Kevin Mgwanga Gunme and Others v. Cameroon, Communication 266/03, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights recommended that Cameroon address discriminatory practices and enter constructive dialogue concerning constitutional issues and grievances threatening national unity. It also urged the complainants to abandon secessionism and pursue dialogue, offering its good offices for mediation. That decision supports neither the dismissal of grievances nor the claim that it judicially authorised independence. It provides a serious basis for reconciliation through engagement.
Dialogue is therefore a responsibility supported by an established regional human-rights recommendation.
The Human Cost
The human consequences make that responsibility urgent. United Nations humanitarian reporting has documented the impact of the North-West and South-West crisis on civilian life, including displacement and grave protection risks. Behind those descriptions are families separated, children deprived of stability, livelihoods interrupted and communities struggling to imagine a secure future.
On this anniversary, our first allegiance must be to human life.
No political objective justifies kidnapping civilians, sexual violence, torture, unlawful killing or attacks on children’s education. The state’s responsibility to protect territorial integrity must be exercised within the law. Those contesting the state remain accountable for their own conduct.
The protection of civilians is an obligation for every party, regardless of its cause.
The continuing suffering requires an honest assessment of the methods pursued so far. Armed confrontation has not produced a durable political settlement. Dialogue that excludes influential stakeholders, avoids the central constitutional questions or produces promises without credible implementation cannot restore lasting trust.
We should assess every initiative by its results: whether people are safer, grievances receive substantive answers, displaced families can return voluntarily, and public confidence improves.
Concrete Commitments for Peace
A credible peace process requires several concrete commitments.
First, the parties must work towards an effective cessation of hostilities, with practical arrangements for civilian protection, humanitarian access and credible monitoring.
Second, dialogue must include those whose participation is necessary for a settlement: government representatives, relevant separatist interlocutors, elected representatives, traditional authorities, women, young people, victims, displaced communities and civil society. Participation should permit disagreement without intimidation.
Third, constitutional questions must receive substantive consideration. Federalism, meaningful decentralisation, regional autonomy, language equality, the protection of legal and educational traditions, and fair access to national opportunities should be examined seriously. Any agreed settlement must be translated into lawful constitutional and legislative measures.
Fourth, reconciliation must include justice. Allegations of grave abuses should be investigated impartially, victims should have access to remedies, and detention practices should undergo lawful review. Confidence-building measures must respect due process and the rights of victims.
Finally, agreements must carry clear responsibilities, deadlines, resources and independent assessment. Citizens should be able to identify what was promised, who must deliver it and whether it has been fulfilled.
Peace must become something people can experience in their homes, schools, farms, courts and communities.
An Honest Assessment of National Unity
October First also offers an opportunity to assess national unity honestly. We should recognise the relationships, shared livelihoods and daily cooperation that have held Cameroonians together. Those achievements deserve protection. They can help us repair the institutions and practices that have failed.
Our purpose should be a country in which historical identity is respected, citizenship carries equal protection, public authority is accountable, and political disagreement can be expressed peacefully.
Remembering Southern Cameroons does not require hatred. Defending Cameroon’s unity requires listening to the people whose confidence that unity depends upon.
Sixty-five years after 1 October 1961, we owe the next generation more than competing anniversaries and inherited bitterness. We owe them the courage to face uncomfortable history and the discipline to negotiate an enforceable settlement.
Bombs, guns and warfare cannot resolve a constitutional question. A lasting answer requires political courage, lawful negotiation and public trust.
Let this anniversary become an occasion to honour freedom through responsibility, remember suffering through compassion, and pursue unity through justice.
The history of Cameroon cannot be complete without October First. Its future can be more peaceful if we finally address the questions that this day continues to place before us.
— Dr. David Makongo
Natural Resources Advocate | Strategic Negotiator | Philanthropist