Educating Will Power. By Arturo Ramo

In educational environments it is often said that the Pedagogy of effort is fundamental for learning with effectiveness and being successful in one’s academic life and life in general.

Various research studies concerning education conclude that the “wanting to study” is more important than intelligence when it comes to academic performance. Payot asserts that genius is, above all, a long process of patience: scientific and literary works that honor human talent the most are not at all due to the superiority of intelligence, like it is generally believed, but instead to the superiority of a will power that is admirably owner of itself.

Campaigns against drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, tobacco and violence are promoted from different sectors of society. In all of these campaigns, the youth is taught to say “NO” to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc., but for this to happen it is necessary for these young people to have a strong will power.

This is why it is crucial to educate one’s will power, which in other words means to educate one’s self.

However, what is will power? It could be said that it is the soul’s potential that moves someone to do or not to do something. Will power moves one to do or to achieve the ideals of the youth as well as the objectives that we propose to ourselves in order to improve society and become a well educated individual. Will power also moves us to not fall for or look for drugs, tobacco, and many other vices that jeopardize human beings. We must especially reject the tendency of only doing that which we fancy and like as well as what our body asks us for. Our will power is shaped by not giving into these little things: i.e. doing at every moment what must be done even if it is difficult to do so. “Do what you must, and be in what you do”, as our grandparents used to tell us.

There are two factors that favor and facilitate will power: motivation and illusion. Motivation consists of having reasons or causes or even motives to do something. These reasons or motives will drag us with force to reach our ideals and goals. Illusion is the hope that is caressed by our imagination, which provides us with joy and good spirit in order to make it till the end of our set purposes.

Personal struggles that move forward through small but constant efforts are at the base of educating will power. Will power is not accomplished by carrying out a heroic act at a given moment, but by achieving small wins with consistency one day after another without giving up.

That is how holistic and integral individuals are educated; those who overcome fatigue, frustration, unwillingness, and the thousands of difficulties that life brings about. A strong will power is essential for success in life and it is one of the best decorations of one’s own personality.

Arturo Ramo
Independent Forum of Opinion


SCNC Elects New National Chairman – Ayah Paul is New SCNC Leader. Curled from Cameroon Daily Journal by Mbom Sixtus

Cameroon Journal, Kumba – Former two-terms CPDM MP for Akwaya who is also Chairman of the People Action Party, PAP, Ayah Paul Abine has been elected new leader of the Southern Cameroons National Council, SCNC. He was given the confidence to lead the group during a gathering held in Kumba yesterday.

While accepting the confidence bestowed on him, Ayah, however, did not say if he will resign his position as PAP national chairman or not.

The meeting, initially scheduled to hold at Kumba Catholic School Hall was held in a private residence after the church officials refused to allow the activists use the hall. The move, our reporter was hinted, was fuelled by government’s refusal to grant the meeting organisers authorisation to meet.

Even though the Kumba gathering was boycotted by most North West SCNC members, Nfor Ngala Nfor, former vice chairman to the late Chief Ayamba sounded rather excited that Ayah Paul will now sit on the movement’s hot seat. “Ayah Paul’s election as national chairman is good news for the Southern Cameroons’ independence struggle,” Nfor told our reporter by phone last night.

Ayah Paul who himself was present at the elective assembly told delegates that his priority assignment will be to undertake a trip to the United Nations and Europe early next year to speed up the Southern Cameroons independence. He is equally expected to reconcile all the various factions and put in place a dynamic national executive; comprising activists from both the North West and South West regions. It was announced at yesterday’s meeting that Ayah Paul’s policy statement would be made public only later today, Dec. 16.

Anglophone mayors, parliamentarians, senators and diplomats invited to the meeting all stayed away. Fon Martin Yembe who was among front-liners for the post of the next SCNC national chairman rather reacted angrily when his opinion was sort; on the eve of the Kumba assembly. “I have heard of the SCNC elective general assembly in Kumba but that does not interest me…,” Yembe who is also first deputy mayor to the Ndu SDF-run council told our reporter.

It should be recalled that since the creation of the SCNC, only South Westerners have led the group. The first was Sam Ekontang Elad. He was succeeded by retired Ambassador Henry Fossung. He was forced to exile abroad and was replaced by Prince Ndoki Mukete.

Mukete abandoned the movement when in 2000; Justice Ebong Frederick seized Radio Buea and declared the Southern Cameroons independence. Mukete who was a FECAFOOT official in Yaounde might have feared he would be linked to the Buea radio seizure and resigned his position as SCNC national chairman.

Logically, he was replaced by another South Westerner, Justice Ebong who had championed the CRTV Buea independence declaration. When he was arrested, detained in Kondengui and later freed, Ebong took refuge abroad and so was replaced by Chief Ayamba who had also participated in the independence declaration on CRTV Buea.

According to an unwritten arrangement that has stayed on since its creation, the offices of the SCNC first vice chairman, treasurer and secretary general among others are reserved for the North West. It is however, not clear if North Westerners who boycotted the meeting will maintain the arrangement.

The SCNC first emerged in Buea as All Anglophones Conference. It witnessed the cream of who is who from the North West and South West regions. It had in attendance, among others, the late John Ngu Foncha and Solomon Tendeng Muna. Its intention then was to address the Anglophone issue in the 1996 constitution that was being revised in Yaounde.

The meeting later continued in Bamenda as AAC II before transforming into SCNC after the Yaounde authorities failed to give an ear to Anglophone marginalisation and the abrogation of the federal system of government on which union between Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun was founded in 1972.

SCNC’s vision, according to organizers of the Kumba assembly, remains the same and is guided by the motto: “The force of argument, not the argument of force”.

Curled from Cameroon Daily Journal by Mbom Sixtus

Riding the Tiger: Cameroon’s Rule of Men Regime. Part II. By Tatah Mentan, Theodroe Lentz Professor of Peace and Security Studies Introduction

Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutions
Throughout most of human history, the rules by which life was governed were usually determined by force and fraud: he who had the power—whether military strength or political dominance—made the rules. The command of the absolute monarch or tyrannical despot was the rule and had the coercive force of the law. Rulers made up false stories of inheritance and rationalizations such as “divine right” to convince their subjects to accept their rule without question. This is still the case in many parts of the world, where the arbitrary rulings of the dictator are wrongly associated with the rule of law.
A principle that itself is quite old and long predates Cameroon, the rule of law, is the general concept that government as well as the governed are subject to the law and that all are to be equally protected by the law. Its roots can be found in classical antiquity. The vast difference between the rule of law as opposed to that of individual rulers and tyrants is a central theme in the writings of political philosophers from the beginning. In the works of Plato and as developed in Aristotle’s writings, it implies obedience to positive law as well as rudimentary checks on rulers and magistrates.
In Anglo-American history, the idea was expressed in Magna Carta in 1215. In its famous thirty-ninth clause, King John of England promised to his barons that “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will he proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the Law of the Land.” The idea that the law is superior to human rulers is the cornerstone of English constitutional thought as it developed over the centuries. It can be found elaborated in the great seventeenth-century authorities on British law, Henry de Bracton, Edward Coke, and William Blackstone. The ultimate outcome of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was permanently to establish that the king was subject to the law.
Over time, the rule of law had come to be associated with four key components in the defunct Southern Cameroons. First, the rule of law means a formal, regular process of law enforcement and adjudication. What we really mean by “a government of laws, not of men” is the rule of men bound by law, not subject to the arbitrary will of others. The rule of law means general rules of law that bind all people and are promulgated and enforced by a system of courts and law enforcement, not by mere discretionary authority. In order to secure equal rights to all citizens, government must apply law fairly and equally through this legal process. Notice, hearings, indictment, trial by jury, legal counsel, the right against self-incrimination—these are all part of a fair and equitable “due process of law” that provides regular procedural protections and safeguards against abuse by government authority. Among the complaints lodged against the king in the Declaration of Independence was that he had “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers,” and was “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.”
Second, the rule of law means that these rules are binding on rulers and the ruled alike. If the American people, as Madison wrote in Federalist 57, “shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.” As all are subject to the law, so all—government and citizens, indeed all persons—are equal before the law, and equally subject to the legal system and its decisions. No one is above the law in respect to enforcement; no one is privileged to ignore the law, just as no one is outside the law in terms of its protection. As the phrase goes, all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We see this equal application of equal laws reflected in the Constitution’s references to “citizens” and “persons” rather than race, class, or some other group distinction, as in the Fifth Amendment’s language that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It appears again in the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The rights of all are dependent on the rights of each being defended and protected. In this sense, the rule of law is an expression of—indeed, is a requirement of—the idea of each person possessing equal rights by nature.
A striking example of this came in 1770, after British soldiers fired into a crowd of colonists, killing five persons, in what is known as the Boston Massacre. Popular passions were overwhelmingly against the soldiers yet, in a remarkable testament to the significance of the rule of law, these British regulars were acquitted in a colonial court, by a colonial jury, and defended by none other than John Adams, who was to become one of the most committed stalwarts of the patriot cause. Adams wrote that this was one of the most disinterested actions of his life, and considered it one of the best services he ever rendered his country.
Third, the rule of law implies that there are certain unwritten rules or generally understood standards to which specific laws and lawmaking must conform. There are some things that no government legitimately based on the rule of law can do. Many of these particulars were developed over the course of the history of British constitutionalism, but they may be said to stem from a certain logic of the law. Several examples can be seen in the clauses of the U.S. Constitution. There can be no “ex post facto” laws—that is, laws that classify an act as a crime leading to punishment after the act occurs. Nor can there be “bills of attainder,” which are laws that punish individuals or groups without a judicial trial. We have already mentioned the requirement of “due process,” but consider also the great writ of “habeas corpus” (no person may be imprisoned without legal cause) and the rule against “double jeopardy” (no person can be tried or punished twice for the same crime.) Strictly speaking, none of these rules are formal laws but follow from the nature of the rule of law. “Bills of attainder, ex-post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts,” Madison wrote in Federalist 44, “are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”
Lastly, even though much of its operation is the work of courts and judges, the rule of law ultimately is based on, and emphasizes the centrality of, lawmaking. This is why, although we have three coequal branches of government, the legislature is the first among equals. But as those who make law are themselves subject to some law above them, this gives rise to the idea that there are different types of laws, some of which are more significant and important, and thus more authoritative than others. The rule of law—especially in terms of key procedural and constitutional concepts—stands above government. By definition and by enforcement it is a formal restraint on government. It judges government in light of a higher standard associated with those ideas. The more authoritative or fundamental laws have an enduring nature. They do not change day to day or by the whim of the moment and cannot be altered by ordinary acts of government.
This sense is captured in Magna Carta’s reference to “the Law of the Land,” a phrase written into all eight of the early American state constitutions, as well as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It is reflected in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The deep importance of this supremacy is seen in the fact that the oaths taken by those holding office in the United States—the president, members of Congress, federal judges—are oaths not to a king or ruler, or even to an executive or to Congress, but to the United States Constitution and the laws.
In the case of the Republic of Cameroon the BIG QUESTION mark as large as the size of Africa is: Can a Personality/Ethnic-Prone Constitution and laws be Personality/Ethnic-Proof? This is the brutal question the Prof.Ndiva Kofele Kale Defense Team has to confront squarely. All those victims of Biya’s “spectacular arrests” and dumping into dungeons had cautioned the Personality/Ethnic-Prone Constitution and laws of impunity for decades. Now, the chicks have come home to roost. Let the jail birds vomit the truth and, as the Holy Bible says,” the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). This is enduringly a political trial of the Biya regime.And, the world is ready to see the verdict.
This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want — including breaking their laws—and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country—live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. Cameroonians were hoodwinked into not collectively deciding that their most powerful political leaders are not bound by laws—that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. The country has thus become a country which lives under the proverbial “rule of men”—that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed—and the “spectacular arrests” and their attendant revelations are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice.

Riding the Tiger: Cameroon’s Rule of Men Regime. Part I. By Tatah Mentan, Theodroe Lentz Professor of Peace and Security Studies


Historical hindsight instructs the attentive world that the Biya regime cannot be accused of being interested in developing a democratic ethos to promote democratic as well as transparent institutions that are answerable to Cameroonians. Instead, the regime is still immersed in that whacky repressive culture intent on controlling, co-opting, containing, or simply coercing or cowing the populace into submission. Besides, logistically and militarily supported by France, that has extensive business “partnerships” with the regime, Biya has until now never been officially accused of crimes against humanity, although several heavily documented reports have been published on the mass human rights violations and massacres that took place in, for instance, February 2008. France is covering him, Switzerland is covering him, as well as others within the international community. They are therefore accomplices to gross human rights violations as well as crimes against humanity in Cameroon.
These foreign umbrellas covering Biya has combined with an ethnic-prone militia called a “national army.” The “security forces” have been trained to kill and to torture. Like ferocious animals they can only be content by shedding the blood of their own people. Human life has absolutely no value in their eyes. They are the best and most obvious symbol of Biya’s age-old bloodthirsty regime. Hence, President Paul Biya has seen no need to offer his vassals the luxury of establishing the rule of law. What is important to his village tyranny is the rule of men, implying the arbitrary use of political authority for the greedy interests of ruling cliques and their starving table companions at home and abroad. .Nemesis of this political myopia has caught up with the President. And, he is spectacularly arresting and jailing those with whom he leagued to bleed the country dry in the name of “embezzlement of public funds” today and organize electoral façades whose results are tabulated before any scheduling of the socalled elections. If Biya cared about the rule of law or the legal maxim whereby governmental decisions are made by applying known legal principles since he claims to have been ruined by legal studies in France, Cameroon would not have degenerated to this nauseating level of corruption. His religion-the rule of men-may not save him in the not too distant future.
Rule of Men vs. Rule of Law
All of the governments that mankind has instituted in the history of the world can be divided into two categories. Any and every state can be categorized into either rule of law governments or rule of men governments. History has proven that any nation founded upon the shifting sands of the whim of men will always degenerate into oligarchy and tyranny. However, a nation of virtuous, educated people, which is founded upon and holds to the bedrock of a rule of law system will maintain prosperity and freedom despite the natural occurrences and challenges of history. This elementary yet strikingly relevant dichotomy is misunderstood by many Cameroonians. And, this misunderstanding is one of the many reasons why Cameroon has been mistakenly led away from a rule of law system toward something that was not intended, rule of men or lawless tyrants.
First, it is important to define the two systems. A governmental system ruled by men is any system in which fallen man directs the course of the nation. This includes not only dictatorships and oligarchies where one man or a select few call all of the shots, but also democracies where majority opinion rules without any restraints or protections for minority opinion and individual liberty. In the case of America, for example, according to its Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure. Liberty and property will not be protected under such systems, and the nation will ultimately suffer under tyranny.
A rule of law system is quite the opposite. In a rule of law system, the country possesses a set of guidelines usually in a constitution, which sets the terms for governing. Only according to those blueprints for governing, then, can any men write and execute additional laws. The constitution is the law of the land, and everything else must be measured up against it. A constitutional republic is such a form of government. The constitution is written to assign tasks to the various branches of government and to assure the God-granted liberty and property rights of every citizen. Then, representatives of the people govern according to the constitutional limits of power with a constant concern for individual liberty and constitutional integrity.
Unfortunately, many Cameroonians have become confused regarding these two drastically different systems for governing. Cameroonians have been taught in school, by the media and by politicians that democracy is good, and that the more democracy we have, the better. This mistaken view is not simply a semantic error, as some might assert, but it is a dangerous misunderstanding. Most Cameroonians actually believe that the majority ought to rule; they do have a correct understanding of democracy, but they mistakenly advocate it because that is what they have been taught to do.
The biggest danger in the bizarre Cameroon brand of democracy is that the very things that government is instituted to protect (liberty and property) are in constant danger to the whim of the President and his kleptocrtic ethnocrats and mealy-mouthed sycophants. In a democracy, when a crisis occurs (whether real or manufactured), the majority calls for government solutions. Then, when politicians answer that call and government grows in size and influence over peoples’ lives, there is an equal and opposite decrease in the amount of liberty and property maintained by the people. 21st century Cameroon history is supposed to reflect this process in action. Interestingly enough, as the government gains more and more power, the majority actually begins to lose its voice and the country descends into oligarchic anarchy and, ultimately, senile and barbaric tyranny.
The only alternative for citizens who want to keep their liberty and property unmolested by majorities or oligarchs is the constitutional republic rule of law system. All governments pretending to be democratic are intended to be such a system. The Government has a job description laid out clearly and concisely in a few-pages-long document, in case any Cameroonian didn’t catch it on the first read through the Constitution. It reminds Cameroonians that any powers not given to the Government are reserved to the people. The obvious central concern of the Constitution in including this emphasis is to limit the amount of power that the native tyrants in government would be able to wield, regardless of what man might say.
The constitution is not meant to be read as a collection of mere suggestions for governing. It is not a piece of paper that can be discarded at will as indicated by Andze Tchoungui years ago. The literal rigidity of the document itself is described well by Thomas Jefferson when he exclaimed, “Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The proverbial chains of the rule of law are meant to bind men down from their wayward tendencies.
Once upon a time in the then Southern Cameroons, citizens and politicians alike had a constant concern for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; laws were written and executed according to its mandates. Those were days when government was limited in its function because the politicians knew that their job description was limited indeed by the expressed powers of the Constitution itself. Those were the days before the “elastic clause” had been stretched to the moon and back by the gangsters of the Cameron Republic. And, those were days when the liberties of the citizens were top priority. Today, we would do well to remember that the law of the land ought to rule and that people (politicians or majority opinion) could only act according to that rule of law. If Cameroonians continue to move simultaneously toward democracy and oligarchy they will be disappointed to see that their future belongs to tyranny. Some day each ignorant citizen will wake up to these realities and will lament, as Woodrow Wilson did years after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in America, “I have unwillingly ruined my government.”

Long Distance Dedication: Mother’s Day. Now in Press: Growing up by Ntemfac Ofege.

Now in Press: Growing up by Ntemfac Ofege. Part of United Media Incorporated’s Children Education Series, CES. Long Distance Dedication. To my mother, Grace Shatu Lami, whose loving presence lingers on after all these years. Still Cut: My name is Rafael-Rene Munkwa. I am ten years old. My father’s name is Mr. Solomon Munkwa while my moth-er is Mrs. Maimouna Munkwa. Mamma sometimes called me Papi. She said that my grandmother gave me the name. I do not remember being born, but Mamma told me that I gave her more trouble than was my due. Mamma said that I first showed signs of coming on a Sunday morning and then I changed my mind about the whole business……

Les Non-dits de la Lettre Ouverte de Marafa Hamidou Yaya Par Ntemfac Nchwete Ofege Aloysius – Prophète.

1. Que les pactes entre le nord et le sud du Cameroun pour la conquête et le maintien du pouvoir restent en place malgré ce remous de surface. Ces pactes sont oisifs pour le groupe Anglos-Bamiléké qui est donc dans l’ante-chambre du pouvoir.
2. L’un de ces pactes dit clairement que ne peut être président de la République que soit un nordiste soit un ressortissant de la région du sud ! Or ces pactes … et le pacte nord-sud …engage les ressortissants d’un même état..L’état francophone ou l’état de East Cameroun ou bien le Cameroun Orientale …ce qui est aujourd’hui devenu La République du Cameroun. donc chez lez francophones !
3. Raison pour laquelle les premiers ministres..anglophones sont carrément dans le rôle du fait valoir. Non seulement ils n’ont rien à voir avec les gouvernements qu’ils sont supposes dirige..mais ils peuvent être arrêtes et malmené sur instruction directe du président de la république..un francophone.
4. Si pacte il y’avait entre Foncha et Ahidjo pour la conquête et le maintien du pouvoir ce pacte a été allégrement violer par les francophones…qui ont produits les deux présidents que le Cameroun a connu.
5. Qu’il sera trop simpliste, comme pense certains de demander que le prochain président soit anglophone. Je pense, pour ma part, que ceci ne résoudra jamais le problème de cohabitation devenu impossible entre francophones et anglophones. La re-création du l’état de West Cameroun qui avec l’état de East Cameroun ont fondent le Cameroun qui existe…est devenu impérative. L’alternative serait de pousser les anglophones vers une sortie légitimée et légale. Bienvenue la Republique Fédérale de Southern Cameroons aka Bimbia aka Ambazonia aka AmbaBimbia.
6. Donc, il n’ya plus et il n’y aura plus jamais un pacte durable entre anglophones et bamilékés et ceci poste 1992 ou bien depuis que les bamilékés ont décidés de faire route avec le régime Biya pour beaucoup de raisons d’ailleurs.
7. est temps que d’autres instances revoir le dossier Cameroun dans son ensemble. L’arrivée de François Hollande avec sont discours sur la corruption et les dictateurs remet ce dossier a table.
J’en ai termine.
Au fait L’Albatros n’est autre que les actes posent par un dictateur dans une dictature.
TWEET DE thierry ngogang ‏ Dans quel but un ministre Cameroun s’est rendu dans le nord avec 300 millions de cfa ces derniers jours?

Albatross Affair: Mebara Found Not Guilty on Three of Five Charges

By Dibussi Tande

The Mfoundi High Court this evening, May 3, 2012, found Mr. Atangana Mebara, former Secretary-General at the Presidency, not guilty of three of the five charges against him in the “Albatross Affair”, the botched attempt to purchase a presidential aircraft for president Biya.
Mebara verdict in Le Jour
Frontpage of tomorrow’s Le Jour newspaper

The High Court found Mr. Mebara not guilty of the attempt to jointly embezzle $31 million with Kevin Walls, CEO of the London-based Airport Portfolio Management (APM), and Essomba Otele, head of APM’s Cameroon subsidiary, Asset Portfolio Management (APM).

This accusation stemmed from a letter that Kevin Walls sent to Mr. Mebara on June 5, 2003 advising him that GIA, a US-based firm which had received $31 million from the Government of Cameroon to purchase a presidential aircraft, could claim the money as arrears for aircraft it had leased CAMAIR.