ISSA TCHIROMA'S CALL TO THE CAMEROON MILITARY TO "TAKE HIM HOME"

“A COURAGEOUS APPEAL—OR A SERIOUS STRATEGIC MISCALCULATION?”

Issa Tchiroma Bakary’s appeal to Cameroon’s defence and security forces to “come and take him home” is politically dramatic and emotionally powerful. However, beyond the symbolism lies a difficult question: Is he appealing to the right institution, with the right message and at the right moment?

From Biya’s defender to Biya’s principal challenger

Tchiroma is not an outsider to the system he now seeks to replace. For years, he served President Paul Biya’s government as minister, government spokesperson and one of its most energetic defenders. He broke with Biya before the 2025 presidential election and emerged as the incumbent’s strongest challenger.

That history gives Tchiroma valuable knowledge of the state, but it also creates a credibility burden. Cameroonians are entitled to ask what changed, when it changed and why the institutions he defended for years should suddenly be considered incapable of delivering justice.

The unresolved wound of the 2025 election

Officially, the Constitutional Council declared Paul Biya the winner with 53.66%, against 35.19% for Tchiroma. Tchiroma rejected those figures, claimed victory and alleged that the people’s mandate had been stolen. Opposition leaders and observers reported irregularities, while protests, arrests and deadly confrontations followed the declaration of results. The government rejected the accusations of fraud, and the Constitutional Council’s decision was final under Cameroon’s existing electoral framework.

Therefore, Tchiroma’s claim to be the elected president remains a political claim disputed by the officially proclaimed outcome. It cannot simply be converted into executive power by a declaration from exile—or by an invitation to soldiers.

The military’s oath is not a blank cheque

Reminding members of the armed forces that they swore to protect Cameroonians may appeal to their conscience. Security personnel are citizens, parents and members of communities affected by unemployment, insecurity and institutional decline.

But their oath is also tied to the Republic, the Constitution and the lawful chain of command—not to an individual politician’s interpretation of an election. Cameroon’s Constitution makes the sitting president head of the armed forces.

The contradiction created by the foreign complaints

Tchiroma has announced criminal complaints in France and Switzerland against President Biya and several senior political, military and security officials over alleged post-election abuses. These remain allegations requiring investigation and judicial determination; filing a complaint is not the same as securing a conviction.

This creates an obvious strategic contradiction. Some of the commanders and officials he is now appealing to may be among those accused—or may see themselves as politically and legally threatened by his possible rise to power. Why would individuals facing potential prosecution facilitate the return of the person pursuing them abroad?

Can the military truly “give” him power?

Power obtained from soldiers is never free. A military establishment powerful enough to install a civilian leader may also become powerful enough to remove him, control him or keep power for itself. Africa’s history is filled with politicians who welcomed military intervention only to discover that armed men do not always return quietly to the barracks.

What does the appeal say about his judgment?

The appeal demonstrates courage and determination, but it also raises concerns about political judgment. A president-in-waiting must think beyond powerful speeches. He must calculate institutional reactions, prevent violence, reassure frightened communities and provide a realistic road map from disputed legitimacy to lawful authority.

A better path for Tchiroma—and for Cameroon

Tchiroma should redirect his appeal toward the Cameroonian people while speaking to the military in strictly constitutional terms.

Paul Biya’s prolonged absences and the absence of clear official communication about his return understandably deepen concerns about leadership, accountability and the functioning of the state. But uncertainty surrounding one leader must not be answered by inviting another institution to operate outside its constitutional role.

Conclusion

Issa Tchiroma may have legitimate grievances. Cameroonians may have legitimate reasons to question the 2025 election, the independence of institutions and the direction of their country.

But Cameroon’s future must not depend on which politician can persuade the military to act on his behalf. The armed forces should defend the nation, not choose its president. Courts should establish criminal responsibility, not political propaganda. And the people—not generals, foreign capitals or closed institutions—must remain the foundation of legitimate power.

Dr. David Makongo