Critiquing the Ambazonian Theology of Father Jerry Jumbam

I first read the book Independence or Nothing by Father Jerry Jumbam over a month ago and twitted about it. At the time, I did not know that the book had been circulating among Anglophone Cameroonians, especially among those in the diaspora. When a friend of mine drew my attention to the book again today, he indicated that the book might have inspired a movie that will be out in July. This led me to believe that the book was becoming more popular among Anglophone Cameroonians who no doubt read it as baptizing their independence. Even though the book clearly disavows violence, those using violence to gain independence are popularizing it. Because the book gives theological backing to the independence of Southern Cameroons, I thought I should respond to the book from the perspective of someone who does not embrace the vision of the book.

Before I proceed, I should note that I find it quite heartening that an Anglophone priest is reflecting theologically on the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon. I admire the passion he puts into his reflection and his desire to be a prophetic voice on this matter. I pray that many more members of the clergy would speak out clearly about the issue as Father Jumbam has done in this book. In times like this, it seems important that members of society, especially members of the clergy who hold influence in society, should speak up clearly about where they stand. This is not a time to sit on the fence. Father Jumbam demonstrates good command of the history of the problem and the importance of reflecting on it theologically. His theology of independence, which he calls a theology of self-determination is, however, a problematic theology at best.

It is problematic theology, first, because of its uncritical reading of history, which sees God as working through the machination of Western colonial powers to eventually bring independence to Southern Cameroons. And so the history he narrates becomes a history of how the British and the French established two systems that are based on two different cultures, which are supposed to be separate, pointing to the future independence or self-determination of Southern Cameroons. This vanished history elides the cruelty of colonial history, focusing instead on the processes that would have led to the independence of Southern Cameroons, as if God intended the history of colonialism in that region to serve the eventual independence of Southern Cameroons. Thus, God sent colonialists to oppress us, so that two cultures may emerge that would one day lead to the independence of Southern Cameroons. This uncritical theological reading of history is only compounded by his view of historiography as a transparent moment of exposing truth rather than a battlefield of ideologies.

A second problem with the theology of independence is the connection it makes to the founding of the state of Israel. He sees the founding of the state of Israel as harbinger of what will happen in Southern Cameroons, apparently oblivious to the problematic nature of the state of Israel. Rooted in a theology of land that is contested, the state of Israel has been in constant violence with Palestine since its founding. This state of perpetual violence between the state of Israel and Palestine, should give one pause about using the founding of the state of Israel as harbinger of great things to come in Southern Cameroons.

Finally, the question of identity. Father Jumbam has many identities, including being a man from Nso, a Roman Catholic priest, and an Anglophone Cameroonian. However, it is his identity as an Anglophone or "Ambazonian" that he prefers to defend. One would expect that a Catholic priest would have a universal vision of the people of God because that is the very nature of the church. One would expect a Catholic priest to be an ambassador of reconciliation rather than fanning sectarianism. One would hope that a Catholic priest would speak truth to power rather than separate one people from the other. But based on the tribalism that is common in Africa, one should perhaps not be surprised that the call to tribalism is coming from a priest. During the genocide in Rwanda, a Hutu priest was seen ordering the massacre of his parishioners who were Tutsi. When he was asked why he was doing that, he said that there was a time for everything. That was in reference to Ecclesiastes 3. Such sectarianism coming from priests shows how much work the church still needs to do in its formation of priests, let alone the ordinary Christian. 

The Poisonous Seed of Violence in Southern Cameroons

The dangerous situation in Southern Cameroons is not so much the violent conflict that is presently taking place there but the nature of this conflict. Brutal images that have surfaced on social media show how people are being killed on both the sides of the conflict - on the side of Cameroon's military and on the side of those dubbed "secessionists" or "terrorists". This is disturbing and dangerous enough. However, the dangerous situation being invoked here is the fact that those who are called "secessionists" or "terrorist" do not necessarily see eye to eye on issues of strategy and ultimate goal. Different groups pop up on social media, claiming to be fighting for independence, without any apparent connection to any other group in Southern Cameroons. There doesn't appear to be any central command. That is at the core of the danger. No one can call for an end to the violence right now. There is no single person in Southern Cameroons respected enough to call an end to the violence, even if the goal of independence is achieved or any other viable solution proposed. Those so-called leaders of Ambazonia do not know all the groups that are fighting and do not control them. Many of the groups are now acting on their own, often oblivious of what is happening in other places.

I recently saw a film of a group of ragtag fighters wearing amulets in a forest somewhere in the North West warning that there is another group which is in danger of being bribed so that it may abandon the cause of independence. It is not clear which group is being accused of this. Herein lies the danger - the violence that has been initiated into Cameroon has led to different fighting groups which apparently now seem to be in competition. The problem with this is that if the goal of independence is achieved, there will be different groups in the country with guns, demanding their own share of the spoils of war. Given that they won independence through violence they would now be even more convinced that violence is the way to get what one wants in life. Thus, instead of having political parties, as should be the case in a civilized democracy, we will have armed factions, as is the case in South Sudan today. From where things stand today, the most possible future of any independent Southern Cameroons is South Sudan.

The only issue now is how to prevent this from happening. The poisonous seed of violence which has been planted in the country will not go away any time soon. For this we have two groups to thank - the Biya junta and the people who call themselves Ambazonia.