CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY By Reverend Father Clemens Ndze

In 1961 two former trustees of the U.N.O; French Cameroon and British Southern Cameroons decided to be united into a federation. After sometime, foundation leaders of one of the parties expressed anxiety about how things were being run and indicated a desire to pull out. Today, the organisation, SCNC, which they instituted, has taken up the affair with religious zeal and it wants a review of the process of unification to help put things straight so that there should not be any simulacrum at all. Activities towards this have been given, wrongly or rightly, various names. Whatever the nomenclature, English-speaking people believe there is a problem which calls for attention. There is an atmosphere of malaise. When you attempt to go deeper you meet a quote homines tot sententiate - as many explanations as there are individuals.

(The Reflections of Reverend Father Clemens Ndze)


A keen observer traversing what history knows as (West) Cameroon) or Southern Cameroons is struck by the contrast between the former and the present state of the geographical extent. The housing situation has improved in many places, people have many more means of transportation, divisional headquarters, police and gendarmerie posts of various magnitudes are countless. But the roads linking various formerly active centres of commerce and communications are deplorable. Historical monuments like the Bamenda fort, relics of those days in Mamfe, Buea and Limbe, which used to inspire awe and admiration have nothing but vagueness to show. One would have to be a mental eunuch not to become emotionally involved in this part of the Cameroon’s affairs, particularly where Cameroonians seem so determined to be their own worst enemies. The person who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for this part of Cameroon, and yet pass over the country, its roads and streets and witness all the wrong and suffering, the shame and degradation wrought, through negligence or whatever, upon the people, aye, wrought by Cameroonians upon Cameroonians, without burning to end it, is, in my estimation, a fraud and a liar in his heart.

Any person who uses perfume hardly perceives after some time its specific odour, he is used to it. It is only those with whom contact takes place, who can become aware of the fragrance. A visitor from the U.S.A remarked that the people in the streets in Limbe, Kumba and Bamenda appeared sad and melancholic. With some exaggeration some one describes the part of the country as a slow, sorrowful land of cheerful indolence and doleful memory. Year in year out, in spite of its riches, the people seem drugged to continue to quarrel among themselves missing opportunities. Is there anything to give reason for optimism? The missed opportunities sit mockingly on the shoulder of every West Cameroonian who seeks improvement or thinks things will change for better. Are we not withering daily, heading for a shadow gradually fading?

A people refused to grow. After self-government we left out of account human history. The times were changing and we did not realise; because much energy was spent on bickering and egoism all which left us exhausted; and we dozed while smart fellows were at the scene. We woke up late to complain loudly in vain. If we are enslaved we have but ourselves to blame. We ourselves have to redeem ourselves. It does not pay to concentrate on the tragic past. We are on our knees; we have to lift up ourselves and reply on our capacities. We are yearning for something, anything to breathe life into a sinking society.

(a) The Problem:

Since 1961 the French and the English speaking inhabitants of the Republic of Cameroon have been attempting to forge a national culture, but they have come up against a multi-facet problem regularly referred to as Anglophone problem. Let us try to define it.

Cameroon before independence stood apart from African groupings, ruling relatively impartially, if now and then arbitrarily. Each of the groups-ethnic entities was equal in its subordination to the alien power; Africans have taken over the governing of their societies; they wield greater powers and control larger resources than did the colonial masters whom they have replaced. For many in authority, control of power implies determining the relationship between one’s own community or ethnic unity and the new locus of power. One of the facets of ethnic nationalism is the claim for equality with other groups. Yet modern political constitutions open the way to possible use as the most potent agents of any form of domination. The fear of domination is simply one of losing identity.

Just as in South Africa, where it was not easy to combine different racial elements: white, black, brown, to form the structure of a single state, the same has been the case in all African nations south of the Sahara in their attempts at ‘nation building’ from a multitude of ethnic groups, each of them fearing subordination. South Africa remained for a long time in Africa the unique case where various experiments have been tried for the purpose of regulating the conditions under which white and black can form one state: combining two different culturally different people. There were at least three alternatives policies among which they made choices in deciding on the main lines of the design to which the future development had to conform; they corresponded to different attitudes of mind towards what they considered the Native question (problem of living with blacks)

The first was: ‘Keep the native in his place’, was one of ‘repression’. The assumed place was one of subordination to the white, where he would remain a servant to the white.

Another dreadful policy was that of assimilation. ‘The object of this policy was to enable the natives imbibe all the white man’s ways as a condition to civilization and then to be absorbed later into the white man’s own civilization. Segregation then came based on the view that the differences between the white and the black are permanent and fundamental. The natives should develop their own system of government in their own area but under the supervision and guidance of the master.

Lastly came cooperation: ‘Association based on differentiation of functions coupled with partial segregation, a sort of compromise between the ideas expressed in assimilation and segregation. All these policies have been tried in South Africa with no logic and consistency.

How absolutely true is it that benefits arose from European occupation: With suppression of incessant warfare and of slavery and of human sacrifices, when one observes what obtains in Africa today? Did this prevention depend on the continuous presence of Europeans or what? No continent has a record equal to that of Africa of indignities to which fellow Africans continue to subject others. Where do we find the reasons?

Could this be explained by the recall of reports emphasizing the primitive aspects of African life in which they were called ‘noble savages’ or sin-ridden creatures now springing from the subconscious? Is it the sordid activities of slavery, wars, witchcraft practices and such-like activities which had been lurking deep down within the people that have turned volcanic? How much of the behaviour of the people we thought we knew was determined by other men, what St. Paul called the OLD MAN. Who had homed himself deep down in the sub conscious? MEN ARE VERY QUEER ANIMALS - A MIXTURE OF THE HORSE-NERVOUSNESS, ASS-STUBBORNNES AND CAMEL-MALICE (T.H. HUXLEY) ‘Man is a national animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason’ (Oscar Wilde).

There is nobody who seeks to suffer injustice, contempt and humiliations. To condemn a human being to a sub-human situation is to reduce him to a pig wallowing in the mud. To create and develop circumstances in which fellow human beings suffer restrictions, indignities and injustices is to enslave them. This is one form of violence. These things have taken place in many parts of the world: they can happen; they are happening in Africa. What is the explanation of these?

Proximately or remotely it could be the competition enkindled by the scramble for power often accompanied by discrimination and also injustice. People fight to get certain positions so as to help members of their family, clan, or tribe putting others at a disadvantage. It could also be defrauding the state with a quiet conscience in the interest of the tribe or region. The end result, at the same time a danger, is that it could cause and promote factions in the country. At least it could cause discontent.

We have been surprised at the lack of unity in modern times of long-standing nations of the world, all because of fear of domination of assimilation by more powerful groups of the state; offhand one can name: Belgium, where two groups, Fleming and Walloon, each is placing its terminal loyalty more and more on its ethnic group. There is Canada trying with difficulty to reconcile the claims of English-speaking and French-speaking groups. One can recall also the remarkable success of Scottish nationalism in Great Britain where ethnic divisions seemed years ago fully reconciled in the new identity of being British. Ask a Scottish dweller today whether he is English, and you will be disciplined with a stern look.

(b) THE SO-CALLED ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM:

Two or more things or people can unite or come together to form one but remaining distinct and separable. It is possible to think of such a union of persons, but where they form one unity, they are distinct but inseparable. The European Union Members have formed a political Economic and moral unity. They remain distinct and separable. Their identities remain intact and sacrosanct.

In 1961 two former trustees of the U.N.O; French Cameroon and British Southern Cameroons decided to be united into a federation. After sometime, foundation leaders of one of the parties expressed anxiety about how things were being run and indicated a desire to pull out. Today, the organisation, SCNC, which they instituted, has taken up the affair with religious zeal and it wants a review of the process of unification to help put things straight so that there should not be any simulacrum at all. Activities towards this have been given, wrongly or rightly, various names. Whatever the nomenclature, English-speaking people believe there is a problem which calls for attention. There is an atmosphere of malaise. When you attempt to go deeper you meet a quote homines tot sententiate - as many explanations as there are individuals.

Perhaps a bit of historical background could add some light; the past is definitely having some relic in the whole issue. Let us see what history has to say. A well-known African writes:

‘The British and the French colonial government pushed contrasting policies, which have been succinctly distinguished as Association and assimilation (in French usage). Paternalism and identify (in British usage); or Indirect and Direct Rule
…French policy stemmed largely from the Revolution, when edicts abolishing slavery had declared that: ‘all men, without distinction of colour, domiciled in French colonies, are French citizens and enjoy all the rights assured by the constitution.’ British policy found ultimate expression in Lord Lugard’s DUAL MANDATE.

The French proclaimed that Africans could assimilate French culture and that those who did so would be accepted on terms of full social equality by the Frenchmen.

The stereotype of the British attitude toward Africans was that they could never become Black Englishmen; that their attempts to imitate British behaviour led to ridicule; and that they should develop their own culture…’ (1)

Although the former French Cameroun was a mandated territory, it seemed to have enjoyed rights of any French colony like Senegal. It had links with the French assembly sending representatives there. French educational policy lay in the establishment of schools with similar curricula to that of France.

The African educated in French territories did, in fact, embrace French culture… Thus Blaise Diagne of Senegal could proclaim. ‘We French natives wish to remain French since French has given us every liberty.(2)

The British pursued their policy of indirect Rule making use of indigenous infrastructures in administration as much as possible.

In contrast with the highly uniform and centralized system of local administration adopted by the French, British colonial administrative policy remained empirical, considerable initiative remained with the D.Os in the field and conscious attempts were made to use indigenous political institutions as instruments of colonial Rule. It was argued that, in situations of social change, the slow adaptation of traditional structures would cause far less disturbance and tension than the introduction of new ones. (3)
This Indirect Rule policy, despite shortcomings, had as basic the paramountcy of African interests, the participation of Africans in the administrative machine. The colonial administration strove to work through the traditional political structure. This was a fitting preparation for a people eventually to assume full responsibility over their own affairs.

The French had another form of indirect rule. Their own stemmed, in part, from the policies of assimilation. Their jurisdictions frequently cut across ethnic boundaries. Again, let an historian speak, ‘The greater part of the French colonial territory was divided into cercles and cantons which frequently and sometimes deliberately cut across ethnic and traditional political boundaries… Men from families traditionally holding posts of authority were preferred, but the prime qualification seemed to be ability and loyalty to France, as demonstrated by literacy, and by service in government offices, in the army or police. A French commandant du cercle took charge of the area in which village chiefs were subordinate to him under pain of dismissal, reduction of salary or reprimand. The difference in the relationship between French Commandant and his canton chiefs on the one hand, and the British D.O and traditional ruler on the other hand, was most marked. The British official spent much of his time touring, visiting chiefs in their own compounds, and according overt respect; the canton chiefs were expected to report regularly to their headquarters for instructions and might wait for hours outside their commandant’s office.’ (4)

If we proceed further to view the area of economy, we shall notice again some telling difference which has also contributed to what we face today. Through the economy the metropolitan and the colony or protectorate were linked. The capital for production of finished goods with raw materials came from the colony. Whereas from the start, the British insisted that each territory, whether colony or protectorate should be self-supporting, the French colonies were integrated very closely with France. French officials were paid from Paris and in the event of any deficits; these were erased with grants from the metropolitan treasury. As one man remarked, ‘this integration does not seem to have resulted in any greater development of French territories, but it did make it far more difficult for them to assert their political independence.’

It is evident from what I have tried to sketch here that whereas the French ‘sought to assimilate the African to their own culture, but were willing to meet only the minute part of the cost of such a programme,’ the United Kingdom proceeded in a different manner. ‘She sought to develop indigenous African institutions, the logical result of which would have been to devolve power upon a legislature of traditional rulers’ (5) with whom she had worked very closely.

The floating concept of Anglophone problem when correctly understood is rooted, if partially, in what we have written so far. When you ask a villager, educated or not, you get one explanation; ask a retired civil servant you get another; go further to members of political parties and you come to still another; diversi diversa loquuntur. Come to a Francophone you get a definition. Some look at it, formulate their idea from the stand point of economy, politics, or culture: alli allia dicunt. My formulation is socio-politico cultural and this is reduced to ‘assimil-annexation-repressionism.’ Judging by what they observe, Anglophones are gradually but certainly drifting into nothingness. To deprive a people of what they had, (and it distinguished them as a people culturally, politically and economically), is to attempt to annihilate them. They believe they are handled as slaves. Here are a people once autonomous in government, now dictated to and ruled by decrees. Neither decrees, nor laws, nor the most humanitarian legislation can produce men, nor make those men brothers.

The relationships between individual persons in our society, those between citizens and public authorities should have the human being as the common centre; he is in effect the foundation, the end and the subject. The economic, social, political and cultural sectors in the development of any society could, if not properly guided, threaten to enclose and stifle human beings in the meshes, where, in fact, they, on the contrary, combine to encourage the souls of all human beings to breathe, and this to affirm and develop the personality. Trespass on the sacred reserve of individual and reverence for personality and you abandon God.

The Anglophone Section of the Cameroon Republic believes strongly that they are politically, socially and economically paralysed by the numerical strength of the other part at all these levels. The average French-speaking individual looks low on even a high standing English-speaking individual in our society. Simply because he was not brought up the French way; he is uncultured! It seems Anglophones’ have to apologise for being what they are.

These are people who had obtained a certain degree of independence and they ran their affairs until unification. They earned that right to rule their country and acquired the dignity of the sons of God; they attained a personality more precious than all authority. In this newly found human dignity, they cultivated an inbuilt urge for the honour and respect of their fellow men. They expect the same to be at the root of independence anywhere, and certainly there with that gained by the fellow French-speaking partners. They expect, further more, to encounter that conviction of each nation and each person, that no matter how destitute, or weak or unwise, at least and at most, he is a man. All people were created equal and endowed with the desire and means to pursue wellbeing. It is the duty of those who rule to safeguard all these by giving every people a fair field and no favour.

It is better to give than to receive. One must see it as a pity that the majority of people is interested more in getting and amassing fortune. To describe the Anglophone problem merely as marginalization is thoroughly unfathomed. The people who hold this are understood to centre their sizing up the situation in terms of having people appointed to higher posts for their personal and not so much the common good. If it is to work and make sacrifices, then this thinking runs contrary to what we all know, the man naturally avoids work.

For over forty years several people have been appointed to hold responsible posts in the government. These people then occupy positions with other elites of relatively substantial size. Expectancy runs high among those who are looking upwards to one day sharing in the affluence and privileges. Many have run a high risk of failure, and now have to be contented with bitterness and disillusionment as their lot.

Start from Muyuka right through Mbonge district, the whole of Kumba, Mamfe up to Widikum and see where and how people live. Have there not been ministers from these regions to speed up development? Is it a matter of cause that the appointment of ministers will serve to wave magic wands to pull people out from mere vegetative or sub-life, which they seem to prefer? Appoint several ministers here and many D.Os and directors; and wait for miracles. That is balanced development. This is what thinking people imagine should be held for what the growing generation should look up to. It is sad!

If Southern Cameroonians had had, even an inkling, that it would come to this, what they are experiencing after years of unification, they would not have voted for unification. They were taken in by plausible double dealing. They have lost the federal status and their liberty as such has gone with. The United Republic has disappeared. These people can no longer understand themselves. Self-understanding is the necessary condition of a sense of self-identity and self confidence. The rush into unification was indeed a leap in the dark.

Thank God! Many things have changed in the mean time. New rulers honour voice of subjects and leaders persuade rather than govern: because faithful to the doctrine of freedom, democracy must grow from the hearts of the people and flower in a climate of liberty. People must not be made to feel that they are exiles in a foreign land. If they cannot be given what they ask for, then surely they will ask for someone else to give it – because stones are no substitute for bread, except for giants or demons.

‘Today an immense task devolves on all men of good will, that of re-establishing the links of life in society upon a basis of truth, justice, charity and liberty’ (6)

Looked at it in the Cameroon context: truth demands that in their dealings one with another all traces of ethnicity between the Francophones and Anglophones should be eliminated: in the same way, the principle should be recognised that both communities are equal by nature and dignity. This is why each has a right to exist, to develop by most appropriate means, and to be responsible for that development; each also has a right to a good reputation and legitimate consideration. They enjoy common humanity.

Justice is what individuals as well as groups or nations fight for. Justice demands that rights be truly respected not overlooking at the same time the obligations linked to those rights. No party may pursue its ends at the expense of the other. Such is the solid foundation of a political community which is quite apart from a mass or a herd or a huddle, because it is a thing of reason and intelligence, studiously formed by the discipline of passion, prejudice and narrow self-interest.

‘Ideally, I suppose there should be only one passion in (‘society’) the city – the passion for justice. But the will to justice, though it engages the heart, finds its measure as it finds its origin in intelligence, in a clear understanding of what is due to the equal citizen from the city and to the city (society) from the citizenry according to the mode of the equality. This commonly shared will to justice is the ground of civic amity as it is also the ground of that unity which is called peace. This unity, qualified by amity, is the highest good of the civil multitude and the perfection of its civility.’ (7)

Someone has jokingly said that the Francophone partner has swallowed the Anglophone right up to the neck and is struggling with the remaining part, the head. It implies the purported assimilation process dreadful to think about. The commercial institutions (Banks, P.M.O., etc) went, hydro-power stations, community development, sanitary inspectors have been suppressed. Anything English which served as reminder of the past was attacked, disabled or destroyed.

In return they have health centres and hospitals which are but caricature, where to reward part time services. There are many schools but no education, and courts notorious for confusion of justice and injustice. These last two bulwarks are being watched with keen interest. The disappearance of these will toll the knell of the people’s hope. There is fear that they are now dying a lingering death.

Anglophones had two respectful systems; courts of justice and education. They would have evolved by now to answer the present needs. Surely, there are efforts to modernize these two; what, to people who could do better, but are not involved, are simply patching up old clothes in the name of harmonisation. It is tinkering with values. A society cannot evidently claim uniqueness without what defines its uniqueness. How can you identify Anglophones without a judiciary and a system of education? These go into the essential affirmation that they are a unique and free community. A loss of such identity could lead to insanity. And what the people identify and name Anglophone would rest upon what? A great peril indeed.

If that harmonization could be achieved in these two areas, there is a need for consensus. Already there was an attempt on the 29th of February 1964 when a commission was set up to study the harmonization of laws in Cameroon. It has not achieved anything. As one of the members noted, ‘I have been chagrined to discover that some members of the law reform commissions see law reform in Cameroon as a struggle between the two legal systems, English and French, for mastery. This shameless exhibition of myopia, bigotry and regionalism accounts for the sometimes, violent and acrimonious arguments that have occurred during working sessions. This attitude is retrogressive and deserves utter condemnations…’ (8) Way back in 1964, Civitas, the year book of Christian organisation published an article on Family in Cameroon. According to Dr. Heinrich Kraus, then of Mannheim University, Parliament could not succeed in deciding on common law because of the differences between Moslems and Christians and tradition and received laws. There was no consensus.

In the eighties, there was an attempt by the Ministry of National Education to harmonise certain areas of syllabuses, taking into account the Francophone and the Anglophone Systems of education. There was an attempt to rush and force issues. During discussions, passions ran high. All was shelved.

I guess it is an attempt to avoid heated debates that reforms are now being introduced more or less secretly and quietly. Complaints about the school year, bilingual approaches in primary schools, methods of examinations and the production and choice and distribution of text books point to a lack of consensus.

People who have been touched even superficially by the English upbringing, have a mind that demands logic, clarity and well defined situations. Obviously, they expect that such things, as those that concern the citizenry should come from those who are conscious of what is proposed and they must be more articulate in proposing and more purposely in the realisation of the project proposed.

The consensus ‘Is an ensemble of substantive truth, a structure of basic knowledge, an order of elementary affirmations that reflect realities inherent in the order of existence. It occupies established positions in society and excludes opinions alien or contrary to itself…’ (9)

Such a consensus presupposes dialogues; it presumes living together and conversing. This living together is far from the passionate fanaticism of the Jacobin: … ‘Be my Brother or I’ll kill you…’ Again rational fruitful conversation would be impeded were people to be huddled together under the rule of force-physical or moral and fear; when economic interests supersede major values e.g. poorly established schools, when mediocrity assumes primacy over excellence, when selfishness dictates the use of positions to make others feel merely tolerated then there are barbarians with eagles’ eyes studying well where and when to plunge for exploitation.

Nothing worthwhile can be expected if,
…Men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument; the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice; when its vocabulary becomes solipsist, premised on the theory that my insight is mine alone and cannot be shared; when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues, when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other’s argument only through the screen of their own categories…when things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversion becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue.’ (10)

There is furthermore another problem that any discussion aimed at the consensus could be facing: I dare say is facing, and it will not be easy to establish a common universe of discourse, if there is lack of agreement on values underlying these concepts: Sincerity, honesty, justice, authority, unity, morality, peace and perhaps even man? We are already notorious for having an attitude to the literal truth which is inclined to be too flexible.

The spirit sweeping through the length and breath of the whole world has acquired a new concept, EGALITARIANISM, which is a claim to a just and equal treatment from a real or imaginary situation of whatever degree or form of subjugation by other people.

‘Perhaps the answer to the multi-ethnicity in each country will be a situation in which each group has guaranteed rights and guaranteed shares in the ECONOMY, the POLITY, in SOCIAL LIFE. (stress Author’s) It is possible to emphasize different parts of this solution: either guaranteed shares for each guru, or guaranteed rights for each individual and each group’ (11)

It seemed the two parties at the conception of unification in Cameroon had the enthusiasm, courage, and perhaps some modicum of integrity. Should one judge by what we’ve seen and continue to live and to hear and to know, there is evidence to doubt the mutual trust and sincerity when it took off. And both parties deprived themselves of a source of esteem because they clogged the well-springs of autonomous cultural creativity. Product of the meeting of two cultural traditions, it should have been the richer for their coming together. Perhaps, design and circumstances both reduced the capacity of each component to quicken and stimulate the other into new cultural growth, and to be quickened in turn by stimuli from outside. There was but one stimulus with unbalanced attention and effect. Instead of organic synthesis, the meeting of Anglophone and Francophone resulted in a social unity that has remained after over forty years mechanical. It is now a ridicule of laughter that passers by now say: They started and could not finish, or they finished and it was blown down because it stood on sand and not a rock.

Fr Clemens Ndze

1. Peter Lloyd: Africa in Social Change, London 1967, pg 59
2. Opus cit
3. Op. cit
4. Op. cit
5. O. cit
6. Pacem in terries Vat
7. John C. Murray: We hold these Truths London 1960 p.8
8. Prof Anyangwe cited by Victor M. in
9. J.C. Murray: Op. cit. pg 9
10. J.C. Murray Op. cit. p. 14
11. Nathan Glazer: Ethnicity a World Phenomen: ALDGUE> VOL 8. No. ¾ 1975 p. 46

Comments

[paolo rassi]

clemens nze writing is just dancing around the subject and doesnt hit the bulls eye.
anglophone are second class for many reason than just the numerical advantage of the francophones,

i am very perplex as to why you didnt mention all the destruction that have been done to west cameroon after
1961. the yoke power plant, the airport in tiko and bali and besong abang, the seaport at victoria, the technical college at ombe. the archives at buea and bamenda, the cdc, the produce marketing board, etc
the city and guilds, the buea house of parliament,
the local governments, the fact that anglophones doesnt have the right today to elect their governors, d.o. police commissioners, court clerks, etc, every thing in life is impose unto them, as a father inpose to his children , ndze if a bamenda man , i say shame on you .
you aint writing any thing close to facts

[W. Schulnies]

Dear Father Clemens Ndze,
with great interest I read your article and can see that the problems really have not changed since the late sixties and early seventies,when we discuss these problems,too.
Yours Walburga Schulnies

[emmanuel fombu]

I read the article and to me it was very informative, because for once, i finally lived to see and article on the cameroon problem that was objective and unbiased. So anybody that tries to criticise this article fits perfectly into what Fr Ndze calls solipsism.

Emmanuel Fombu
Shesan

[Bambey Boy]

Father Ndze must be one of the uncouth SCNC people that Yang and co are trying to ban.

[Andong Akofu]

It appears the learned and erudite scribe and parson in the person of Fr Clemens Ndze knows much more about the state of affairs in this country. Even better than the bribe fattened administrators egoistic politicians or the exalted Sa Majeste Paul Mvondo Biya. His article is not only historical or does not only serve in its bid to redress the Southern Cameroonian situation, but also evokes the spirit of our true identity rather than selling it to the francophones.
This kind of creative writing is typical of you Reverend Fr, once my formator.
Andong Akofu
SHESAN, 1997-2002

[Andong Akofu]

It appears the learned and erudite scribe and parson in the person of Fr Clemens Ndze knows much more about the state of affairs in this country. Even better than the bribe fattened administrators egoistic politicians or the exalted Sa Majeste Paul Mvondo Biya. His article is not only historical or does not only serve in its bid to redress the Southern Cameroonian situation, but also evokes the spirit of our true identity rather than selling it to the francophones.
This kind of creative writing is typical of you Reverend Fr, once my formator.
Andong Akofu
SHESAN, 1997-2002

[bruno mars]

I was trying to add your RSS feed to my reader, but it didn't work. =/ Any ideas on other ways to subscribe to your site?

-Bruno

[metformin]

Great post I must say. Simple but yet interesting. Wonderful work!