Joe Dinga Pefok (Uncle Joe)
The Mentor Revisits An Important Presentation That Was Made By A US Trained Expert In Conflict Resolution, Retired Dr Col Magistrate Didier SIPA NDONGMO, At A High Level Workshop In Douala Last April. The Mentor Finds It Ironical That When It Came To Conflict B/w Cameroon And Nigeria Over Bakassi, The Biya Regime Saw The Need For Mediation By A Third Party, But When It Comes To The Anglophone Conflict, Precisely The Same Regime Is Strongly Opposed To Inclusive Dialogue. They Are Now Talking Of Community Dialogue.
An international expert in conflict resolution, Dr Colonel Magistrate Didier Sipa Ndongmo (retired senior military judge), last April explained that there is an internationally recommended procedure to follow, in conflict resolution between two or more parties. This procedure also serves as a guideline in preparations for conflict resolution.
It should be recalled that the expert was speaking, during an important presentation he made at a high level workshop that was jointly organized in Douala on April 10, 2026 by the Heritage Higher Institute of Peace and Development Studies (Yaounde), and the Nico Halle & Co Law Firm (Douala), on the theme: JUSTICE, PEACE BUIDLING, AND RECONCILIATION IN CAMEROON, to celebrate the 3rd anniversary of the partnership between the two institutions.
The presentation by Dr Col Mag Didier Sipa Ndongmo, who was one of the four resource persons at the workshop, that had as Moderators Prof Willibroad Dze –Ngwa and Sir Dr Barrister Ntumfor Nico Halle, was on the topic: “Mediation As An Alternative Mechanism, For Justice & Peace Building In Cameroon”.
The Mediator Must Be Neutral And Credible / Inclusive Dialogue
The US trained conflict resolution expert, Dr Col Magistrate Didier Sipa Ndongmo, said one of the first things to do in a conflict resolution process, is to get or find a mediator, and that the mediator must be neutral and credible or trusted by the parties in the conflict. The mediator can be a country, an organization or even a personality. If one of the parties in the conflict considers the mediator as not being a neutral or credible party, it will not accept the mediator. The mediator must not only be considered to be neutral, but must in the course of the peace talks prove to be neutral in the conflict. The mediator must also have a good knowledge of the main causes or background of the conflict, in order to be in the position to better conduct the talks, while at the same time not taking sides. It should be noted that it is the mediator that chairs the peace talk that brings together the parties in a conflict.
Another point is that all parties that are actually involved in the conflict, have to be invited to the peace talks on the conflict. The parties must all participate in the peace talks, if the conflict has to be effectively resolved, or brought to an end. That is, the dialogue between parties in a conflict aimed at seeking an end to the conflict, has to be an inclusive dialogue. If one of the parties, especially a major party, is left out of the peace talk, things will definitely not work. There is also the possibility that a party which is left out of a peace talk, even if a small party, can also deliberately decide to play the role of a spoiler.
Parties Independently Designate Their Delegates
Another point which the expert, Dr Col, Magistrate Sidier Sipa Ndongmo, raised, is that, the different sides or parties in a conflict that have to take part in a dialogue or peace talk, each independently designates their representatives to the talks. This means that non- of the parties to take part in the peace talks, has the right to impose on the other party, the persons it would like see designated as its representative at the talks. Rather, each party designates the personalities it thinks can best defend its interest in the talks.
There is also the issue of the number of number of persons that each party in a conflict can designate to represent it at a peace talk. The number of persons in a delegation to represent a party in a conflict at a peace talk has, to be reduced to the barest minimum. This means that members of the delegation must all be persons that are relevant to the peace talks. When people who are not relevant in a peace talks or dialogue, or persons who do not have a good knowledge of the issues, sit in the hall during the talks, they serve more as a distraction.
Enough Time Must Be Given To Resolve A Conflict
The expert in conflict resolution also stated that mediation in a conflict must be given enough time. Delegations to peace talks do often need time to return home after a session, to brief their governments, their people, their organization or institutions, or to consult with their governments, their people or their organizations, on the responds to give to certain issues raised by the other parties at the talks.
There has to be no unnecessary rush in the peace talks. It should be noted that in any conflict, there are root causes and immediate causes. The root causes are often very complicated or difficult to resolve, but must be resolved to ensure lasting peace. If only the immediate causes of a conflict are resolved, peace might be restored, but what will be certain, is that the peace will be temporal or short lived. As long as the root causes of a conflict are not tackled or resolved, there will remain the risk of the possibility of the conflict sparking off again, sooner or later.
The Conflict Over The Oil Rich Bakassi Peninsular
Meanwhile, the conflict resolution expert, Dr Col Mag Sipa Ndongmo, took as an example of a success story in conflict resolution that involved Cameroon, the case of the conflict between neighbouring Nigeria and Cameroon over the oil rich Bakassi Peninsular. To begin with, there was a neutral mediator, precisely the United Nations, whose Secretary General then was Ghanaian born, Koffi Anan (now of blessed memory). It was the mediator (United Nations) that chaired the meetings or peace talks. Both Nigeria and Cameroon accepted that the United Nations, which they both considered a neutral party in the conflict, should play the role of mediator in the resolution of the conflict.
Also, both Cameroon and Nigeria independently designated their representatives to the peace talks. Nigeria did not try to decide on those who should be in the Cameroon delegation, just as Cameroon too did not try to do same for the Nigerian delegation.
Furthermore, members of the Cameroon delegation to the peace talks, just like members of the Nigerian delegation to the talks, were all relevant to the talks, That is, they were all considered by their different countries, as having important roles to play for the interest of their different countries, at the peace talks. Some members of the delegations were lawyers, historians among others. These were all professions very relevant in the peace talks, on the conflict over the ownership of the oil rich Bakassi Peninsular.
Also, the effective resolution of the conflict over the Bakassi Peninsular by the UN mediation, which culminated in the signing of the Green Accord between Nigeria and Cameroon, took four years. The United Nations that was the mediator did not rush the process. Enough time was given for the resolution of the conflict.
Suffice to say that in 2006 in New York, Nigeria and Cameroon under the mediation of the United Nations, signed the Green Tree Accord, ending the conflict over the ownership of oil rich Bakassi Peninsular. Nigeria endorsed the established facts that the Bakassi Peninsular rightly belongs to Cameroon, and on August 14, 2008, Nigeria officially ceded the Bakassi Peninsular to Cameroon. Thus at the end of the day, the conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsular was successfully resolved through UN mediation, or through an inclusive dialogue. It should be noted that the UN mediation in the conflict over the Bakassi Peninsular, strictly followed the internationally recommended procedure in conflict resolution.
The 2019 “Major National Dialogue”
Meanwhile, as for the 2019 “Major National Dialogue”, that was supposedly organized to end the Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon, that in late 2017 had so unfortunately escalated into an armed conflict between Government troops and separatist fighters, the result was a woeful failure for obvious reasons. It should be noted that the separatists are a section of the Anglophone Cameroonians, who controversially say they want to secede and create an independent State they call, Ambazonia. The separatist leaders are mostly in the diaspora.
Meanwhile, to begin with, as concerns the 2019 ‘Major National Dialogue’ (MND) which held from September 30 – October 4, 2019, that was said to had been convened to end the Anglophone Crisis, especially the armed conflict, it was convened by President Paul Biya, that is, the Government. It should be noted that the Cameroon or the Biya Government, is a party in the armed conflict in the two Anglophone Regions, because Government troops are fighting on the instruction of the Government. Suffice to say the MND was organized by the Cameroon Government; a party in the armed conflict.
Second Point: The ‘Major National Dialogue’ was chaired by Prime Minister Chief Dr Joseph Dion Ngute, designated by President Biya. Thus again, the government that is party in the armed conflict in the two Anglophone Regions of Cameroon, was the one that chaired the ‘Major National Dialogue”.
Third Point: Participants at the ‘Major National Dialogue’ were all selected or invited by the Government. Thus again, the Government that is a party in the armed conflict in the two Anglophone Regions, was the one that selected or invited all the participants to the ‘Major National Dialogue’.
Separatists Were Not Present At the ‘Major National Dialogue’
Fourth Point: This point, which is one of the key points in this whole thing, is that the separatists were not present at the ‘Major National Dialogue”. Yet the separatists constitute one of the two camps involved in the armed conflict in the two Anglophone Regions. As aforementioned, the armed conflict in the two Anglophone Regions is between government troops and separatist fighters. How then could the Government organize the ‘Major National Dialogue’ to end the conflict, in the absence of the separatists! With whom then did the Government side, dialogue! That is why critics dismissed what the Biya regime termed as the 2019 Major National Dialogue, as a monologue. There was no dialogue. As is commonly said, one does not dialogue with his friends, rather, he dialogues with his opponent or enemy.
Another negative point related to the 2019 ‘Major National Dialogue’ in the sense of conflict resolution, was that the event was flooded with people who were not relevant to the main ‘objective’ of the event, which was to end the armed conflict or the escalated Anglophone Crisis. In fact the ‘Major National Dialogue’ looked more like a congress of the ruling CPDM Party.
Gross Violation Of Principles In Conflict Resolution
Meanwhile, from all the above, it was not surprising to observers in Cameroon and beyond, that the so called Major National Dialogue that the Biya Government organized in Yaounde from September 30 – October 4, 2019, woefully failed to end the armed conflict between Government troops and separatist fighters in the two Anglophone Regions. The organizers of the ‘Major National Dialogue’ violated all aspects of the internationally recommended procedure in conflict resolution. This is the reason why the MND woefully failed to end the Anglophone Conflict.
It is also unfortunate that while the Biya regime saw the importance or necessity of a third party (neutral or credible) to come in and mediate to end the conflict between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsular, when it comes to the Anglophone Conflict, the same Biya regime is opposed to mediation by a third party. After the ‘Major National Dialogue’ woefully failed to resolved the Anglophone Conflict because it was not inclusive, the Government has moved backwards, and is now talking of Community Dialogue to resolve the Anglophone Conflict, or better still, the Anglophone Crisis, which is a national issue, and needs a national solution.
