elvispaulv
Had the Southern Cameroons a Central Bank and relevant State institutions before independence on October 1, 1961
Southern Cameroons
Posts 1 - 2 of 2
replied to: elvispaulv
trit
Replied to: Had the Southern Cameroons a Central Bank and relevant State institutions...
The Southern Cameroons didn't have a central bank as they used the british currency prior to October 1, 1961. But prior to 1961, they had a prime minister and a government, complete with competing political parties. It also had a House of Assembly. (See UN Resolution 1350 of 13 march 1959 and Resolution 1352 of October 16, 1959).
The relevant point here is that there was no union treaty signed between th Southern Cameroons and the French Cameroun and filed with the UN in accordance with UN Charter Article 102(1). As I write in 2010, there still is no such treaty filed with the UN. In fact, it's been proven (and the maps of Cameroon recently presented by the president of the UN General Assembly to the president of Cameroun on the occasion of the country's 50th anniversary), confirm that the UN still has the map of Cameroon as 2 separate territories. A final treaty of union with a map was never filed with the UN. It should also be noted that the UN registered its trusteeship agreement for the territory of British Cameroons in an "ex officio" manner in accordance with UN Charter Article 102(1) at the time that the UN acceded from the League of Nations' mandate system (See http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/7/00000316.pdf). But there was nothing ever filed neither by the UN, nor the UK, nor by the already independent Republique du Cameroun with respect to the de-mandating of the same territory. All we have are the results of a vote and UN committee and General Assembly debates with respect to the votes. There was no concrete document, no union treaty, no federal constitution filed with the UN. Nothing. The Administering Authority (the UK) and to a lesser extent, the UN, left the English speaking British Cameroons all to themselves. And they went into constitutional talks without any lawyers. The British Cameroons representatives (non-lawyers) sat to debate intricacies of a federal constitution with the French Cameroun counterparts who were already independent and who came along with lawyers and constitutional law experts from France.
The plebscite was not meant to serve as a treaty as some contend because even after the UN endorsed the results of the plebiscite, it still set other prescriptions (by means of another UN Resolution 1608 of April 21, 1961) to be completed before the the date the trust was due to end. Some of these prescription include: "for the administering authority to work with the government of Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to finalize discussions with respect to AGREED and DECLARED policies. As noted above, the administering authority (the UK, did not provide legal assistance to the Southern Cameroons.
Even in treaties in which the UN is a party (as some may argue was the case here), UN regulations stipulate that the UN must file such a treaty with itself in an "ex officio" manner. As noted, there is no such treaty filed by neither the Republic of Cameroun that was already UN member then, nor the UK, nor the UN. Furthermore, based on talks between the parties even prior to October 1, 1961, the union with the Republic Cameroon pursuant to the plebiscite was suppose to be a federal union. however, in 1972, an illegal referendum was conducted which did not take into account the fact that the French majority who overwhelmingly supported a unitary state outnumbered the English (Southern Cameroons) most of whom prefered a continuation of the federal arrangement.
Naturally, the results of the 1972 referendum reflected the wishes of the French majority - that is, to end the federal arrangement and replace it with a unitary state. This was done with the whole world watching and no one batting an eye. It's similar to asking all the 50 U.S. states to participate in a referendum on Puerto Rico's statehood question.
The relevant point here is that there was no union treaty signed between th Southern Cameroons and the French Cameroun and filed with the UN in accordance with UN Charter Article 102(1). As I write in 2010, there still is no such treaty filed with the UN. In fact, it's been proven (and the maps of Cameroon recently presented by the president of the UN General Assembly to the president of Cameroun on the occasion of the country's 50th anniversary), confirm that the UN still has the map of Cameroon as 2 separate territories. A final treaty of union with a map was never filed with the UN. It should also be noted that the UN registered its trusteeship agreement for the territory of British Cameroons in an "ex officio" manner in accordance with UN Charter Article 102(1) at the time that the UN acceded from the League of Nations' mandate system (See http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/7/00000316.pdf). But there was nothing ever filed neither by the UN, nor the UK, nor by the already independent Republique du Cameroun with respect to the de-mandating of the same territory. All we have are the results of a vote and UN committee and General Assembly debates with respect to the votes. There was no concrete document, no union treaty, no federal constitution filed with the UN. Nothing. The Administering Authority (the UK) and to a lesser extent, the UN, left the English speaking British Cameroons all to themselves. And they went into constitutional talks without any lawyers. The British Cameroons representatives (non-lawyers) sat to debate intricacies of a federal constitution with the French Cameroun counterparts who were already independent and who came along with lawyers and constitutional law experts from France.
The plebscite was not meant to serve as a treaty as some contend because even after the UN endorsed the results of the plebiscite, it still set other prescriptions (by means of another UN Resolution 1608 of April 21, 1961) to be completed before the the date the trust was due to end. Some of these prescription include: "for the administering authority to work with the government of Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to finalize discussions with respect to AGREED and DECLARED policies. As noted above, the administering authority (the UK, did not provide legal assistance to the Southern Cameroons.
Even in treaties in which the UN is a party (as some may argue was the case here), UN regulations stipulate that the UN must file such a treaty with itself in an "ex officio" manner. As noted, there is no such treaty filed by neither the Republic of Cameroun that was already UN member then, nor the UK, nor the UN. Furthermore, based on talks between the parties even prior to October 1, 1961, the union with the Republic Cameroon pursuant to the plebiscite was suppose to be a federal union. however, in 1972, an illegal referendum was conducted which did not take into account the fact that the French majority who overwhelmingly supported a unitary state outnumbered the English (Southern Cameroons) most of whom prefered a continuation of the federal arrangement.
Naturally, the results of the 1972 referendum reflected the wishes of the French majority - that is, to end the federal arrangement and replace it with a unitary state. This was done with the whole world watching and no one batting an eye. It's similar to asking all the 50 U.S. states to participate in a referendum on Puerto Rico's statehood question.