Dr Peter Mbile
By Dr. Peter Mbile
In Cameroon’s highly fractured political landscape, every political ambition inevitably invites both scrutiny and hope. A recent opinion has resurfaced, critiquing Barrister Akere Muna’s political trajectory by questioning his “constituency”—specifically his roots in Meta, his Anglophone identity, and the legacy of his father, the late Rt. Hon. ST Muna. While the critique raises emotionally potent and historically resonant issues, it also deserves a thoughtful and balanced counter-analysis.
*Is Political Strength Born Solely of a Constituency?*
The assertion that “the strength of a politician comes from his constituency” is both valid and incomplete. While no politician can rise without a base of support, history reminds us that the most transformative leaders transcend their initial constituencies. In fact, leadership that binds diverse groups—especially in postcolonial and divided societies—often earns deeper legitimacy than tribal or regional strongholds alone.
Does this mean a politician should neglect their constituency? Absolutely not. But the real question is: Which constituency? Is it ethnic? Geographic? Ideological? In today’s Cameroon, a politician must build layered constituencies—starting from roots, but stretching toward national unity. Strength comes not just from where one begins, but from where one can carry others.
Should Akere Muna Appeal to Meta, Anglophones, or the Nation?
The call for reconciliation with Meta and Southern Cameroonians points to unresolved wounds—some of which are admittedly rooted in the polarizing decisions of the 1960s and 70s. But to tie Akere Muna’s political credibility solely to ethnic and regional atonement is to misunderstand the trajectory he has chosen.
Akere Muna has, whether intentionally or not, pitched himself as a national reformist—an anti-corruption crusader, governance reformer, and statesman. His appeal is Pan-Cameroonian. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this approach, it is a legitimate and even necessary strategy in a nation hungry for cohesion.
That said, reconciling with one’s origins is not mutually exclusive with building a national vision. Akere Muna may indeed benefit from re-engaging his Meta roots—not as a tribal obligation, but as part of a broader story of inclusion and healing. Likewise, addressing the Anglophone grievances head-on—without ambiguity—could expand his moral and political reach.
Carrying the Political Baggage of ST Muna: Burden or Blessing?
Like it or not, Akere Muna carries a powerful political legacy. The Muna name is etched into the DNA of Cameroon’s political history—for good and ill. His father, ST Muna, was a towering figure: a unifier to some, a collaborator to others. That legacy gives Akere undeniable access to a certain stature—but also invites criticism and suspicion, especially from Southern Cameroons activists who view the reunification process as betrayal.
This duality can be both an asset and a liability. To navigate it wisely, Akere Muna must do three things:
Acknowledge the ambiguity of his father’s legacy without defensiveness.
Own his own political identity—as a man of his time, not merely his father’s son.
Use the Muna name not to inherit, but to reform what was broken and help reconstruct what is possible.
Great leaders do not erase their inheritance; they reinterpret it for their generation.
Anglophone Crisis: Burden of Silence or Bridge of Hope?
Perhaps the most consequential part of the critique lies in the charge that Akere Muna has “refused to be an advocate” for the restoration of Southern Cameroons. This is a complex accusation, especially in a nation where advocacy for separation is criminalized and polarizing.
But let us ask—what should be expected of a statesman in times of national fracture?
Akere Muna’s critics say he has not fully embodied the hopes of the Anglophone people. That may be a fair concern. His ambiguous positioning on federalism, restoration, or secession has created space for doubt. But others argue that ambiguity is sometimes a survival strategy—an attempt to hold the fragile threads of nationhood together.
Still, silence or vagueness is not without cost. If Akere Muna is to hold national ambition, he must demonstrate the capacity to carry the pain of his people—not just as empathy, but as action. That does not require militant rhetoric, but it demands unmistakable clarity. Can he be a bridge between the restless Anglophone soul and a reimagined Cameroonian future? If not, his national project may remain incomplete.
*In conclusion* the Real Strength of a Politician
In the end, a politician’s strength must come from more than tribal loyalty, more than historic redress, and more than national ambition alone. It must come from truthful navigation of identity, history, and future possibility.
Barrister Akere Muna may not fit neatly into every ideological box. But dismissing his project because he has not performed expected acts of loyalty to specific ethnic or political constituencies risks overlooking the greater political challenge of our time: building a Cameroon where reconciliation is not currency for power, but a foundation for rebirth.
He still has time. The path forward is not to use the Restoration of Southern Cameroons as a bargaining chip, but as a reality to be faced—with clarity, dignity, and the will to lead all Cameroonians, not just some.
(Dr. Peter Mbile is an Environmental Governance Specialist and Policy Analyst with extensive experience in Central and West Africa. He writes frequently on political transitions, identity, and reform in postcolonial African states)