Home » Free Southen Cameroon » Southern Cameroons had two Communications at the African Commission: Communication 266/2003 whose ru…

Southern Cameroons had two Communications at the African Commission: Communication 266/2003 whose ru…

Banner 728×90

----------> www.nchangshoeboys.org Support the Nchang shoe boys via above link as we want to exert serious incursion on the ground. Ambazonians pls forward to all friends and family on your whatsapp. Let us rise like one people one power and kick out the occupier LRC from our land. Aluta Continua # freesouhterncameroon #freeayuktabe #freepatassang --------
Southern Cameroons had two Communications at the
African Commission: Communication 266/2003 whose
ruling has been handed down and Communication
337/2007. As sumised by the deputy-Chairman of SCAPO,
Augustine Feh Ndangam, ‘the ruling on Communication
266/2003 has brought in a significant measure of
breakthrough and weaned that project from the windward
side of the mountain to the leeward, and the flurry of
activities.’ [1]
Per Ndangam, broadly speaking in Communication 337, the
State of the Southern Cameroons is asking the ‘Court’ or the
African Commission – to declare La Republique du
Cameroon to be in violation of Article 4(b) of the Constitutive
Act of the African Union with respect to the westward
expansion of the international boundary of La Republique du
Cameroun to include the former UN Trust territory of the
Southern Cameroons. As earlier stated, State parties to the
African Constitutive Act are committed (Article 4b) to
respecting the borders they inherited at independence. That
is their recognized international boundary.
In a September 13, 2008 response to Letter No ACHPR /
LPROT/COMM377/07/FO of October 7, 2008, SCAPO and
the SCNC wrote:
1) Comunication 337/2007 was filed at the 41st ordinary
Session of the ACHPR in Ghana. At the 42nd Session in
Brazzaville, Complainants were told that the Respondent
states had not yet replied.
2) At the 43rd Session in Swaziland, Complainants were
again told that the Respondent States had not yet replied.
3) Here at the 44th Session In Abuja, complainants have
again been told that the Communication under reference is
being deferred because Respondent States have not yet
replied.In the light of these persistent failures of the
Respondent States to respond, we urge the Commission to
take the appropriate measure/decision when defendants
either refuse or reply after three sessions as is the present
case.
To this end we wish to underscore the following points:
1) That the frontiers of the Southern Cameroons are
determined by I



Courtesy of… Mba Shanseline || 2017-02-07 07:45:50

rectangle 300×250
Similar posts

Leave a Reply