Ten Arguments That Collapse the Claim of a Legal Union Between Southern Cameroons and La République du Cameroun

For decades, the conversation around Southern Cameroons has been buried under slogans, assumptions, and political storytelling. When you strip emotion away and apply basic legal reasoning, the entire structure of La République du Cameroun’s claims falls apart. Below is a simple walk-through of ten core arguments that expose how the supposed “union” never happened in law.

11/24/20253 min read

1. The Union Treaty Argument

If Southern Cameroons actually joined La République du Cameroun in 1961, then a union treaty must exist.
A real union requires a treaty that is signed, ratified, and deposited at the United Nations under Article 102 of the UN Charter.

If such a treaty had ever been deposited, the UN, AU, and the ICJ would have it on record.

Since no treaty exists anywhere in the world’s legal archives, the claim that Southern Cameroons “joined” collapses immediately.

2. The Resolution 1608 Argument

The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1608 (XV), which required Britain, Southern Cameroons, and La République du Cameroun to meet and finalize the terms of the union.

That conference never took place.

If the required conference never happened, then the union was never consummated.
And if the union was never consummated, La République du Cameroun has no legal basis for claiming sovereignty over Southern Cameroons.

3. The Trusteeship Completion Argument

Southern Cameroons was a UN Trust Territory. Decolonization had to follow specific UN procedures.

The final act of decolonization was supposed to be a treaty of union.
Since no such treaty was ever completed, the decolonization process remains incomplete.

If decolonization remains incomplete, the people of Southern Cameroons retain both the right and the responsibility to bring that process to its lawful end.

4. The Administrative Authority Argument

Britain ended its administration on October 1, 1961. When a colonial administrator withdraws, legal authority must pass to someone through a valid instrument.

No treaty ever transferred administrative authority to La République du Cameroun.
Without that transfer, La République du Cameroun never lawfully acquired authority over the territory.

Any administration it has carried out since then amounts to an unauthorized extension of control, which violates international law.

5. The Self Government Argument

Before the crisis, Southern Cameroons had full self government with a House of Chiefs, House of Assembly, and an elected Prime Minister. This structure had the constitutional capacity to negotiate and sign treaties on behalf of its people.

If it was competent enough to sign a treaty, it was also competent enough to refuse one.

Since no treaty was signed, nothing binds Southern Cameroons to La République du Cameroun today.

6. The Reunification Myth Argument

The word “reunification” suggests the two territories were once united.
History says otherwise. Before 1961, Southern Cameroons and La République du Cameroun had never been a single political entity.

If there was nothing to reunify, then any attempted union required a fresh, valid treaty.
Since that treaty never existed, the “reunification” narrative is a myth.

7. The Identity Restoration Argument

In 1984, La République du Cameroun restored its original 1960 name. In legal terms, this meant it reverted to the state that existed before any alleged union.

If a party in a union legally reverts to its pre union identity, it has effectively repudiated the union.

If one partner disappears legally, the union dissolves automatically.

La République du Cameroun’s own action confirms that the supposed union never existed to begin with.

8. The Exchange of Notes Argument

If simple Exchange of Notes were enough to form a union, treaties would not be required anywhere in the world.

Every real political union, from Tanzania to the European Union to Singapore and Malaysia, is founded on a treaty.
Exchange of Notes is only administrative notification, never a binding union treaty.

If Exchange of Notes is not a treaty, then no union was formed in 1961.

9. The Jurisdiction Argument

A state claiming jurisdiction over a territory must be able to prove the legal basis for that claim.

If La République du Cameroun cannot produce a treaty transferring sovereignty or authority, then it has no jurisdiction.

Without jurisdiction, everything it does in Southern Cameroons — detention, taxation, military deployment, administration — violates international law.

10. The Citizenship Argument

If La République du Cameroun claims Southern Cameroonians are its citizens, it must show the legal act that created that citizenship.

A union treaty is the only instrument that could have transferred citizenship.
Since no treaty exists, citizenship was never lawfully conferred.

If citizenship was never conferred, then Southern Cameroonians are not citizens of La République du Cameroun but a people under incomplete decolonization.

Final Thought

When you apply basic legal reasoning to the facts, everything becomes clear. The problem is not emotion, politics, or identity. The problem is a missing legal foundation. And without law, claims of sovereignty, citizenship, and administration cannot stand.