By Dr. Peter Mbile
The uproar over Candidate Issa Tchiroma Bakary’s (ITB) declaration of friendship with secessionist leaders is not surprising.
In fact, it was predictable.
For anyone who has followed both the Anglophone Crisis and the fever of the 2025 elections, the real question was never if the crisis in the two English-speaking regions would intrude into the national campaign, but when and how?
The crisis as a hot potato
The Anglophone Crisis has long been political dynamite. It has cut short careers, landed people in prison, and taken lives across the social spectrum.
A retired colonel from Ndian is still believed to be in protective custody, or worse, because of his proximity to the conflict.
Administrative officials themselves admit that what makes the crisis most intractable is that it is deeply embedded in local communities.
The very actors driving the conflict are our neighbors, classmates, cousins, and even peers.
Because of this embeddedness, proximity to secessionists has always been a double-edged sword.
Everyone knows that senior officials, chiefs, and political leaders have at one point or another been contacted directly by secessionist leaders, often by phone, and often under threat.
No honest authority can swear on their heart that they have never interacted with such figures.
Yet exposure of such contact is politically lethal.
For sitting officials, acknowledging these realities has always been tantamount to career suicide.
This paradox partly explains why the crisis has dragged on for nine years.
Engagement is necessary for resolution, yet the fear of being branded a traitor has discouraged meaningful dialogue.
Those who dared to engage openly, candidates like Osih, Cabral, or Akere campaigning in Ambazonian hotspots, earned a certain respect for courage.
Yet within government, any hint of the same courage was punished.
Tchiroma’s Pivot
It is against this backdrop that ITB’s recent utterance in Bamenda, must be understood.
As Minister, he once denied the existence of an Anglophone Problem, aligning with the official narrative.
Today, as Candidate, he calls a secessionist in Bamenda his “friend.”
This shift is not about a change of person, but about a change of positioning.
What was once a liability for a minister has become an asset for a challenger.
A relationship that could destroy a political career within government may now serve as proof of courage and openness on the campaign trail.
The furious reaction from pro-government actors only confirms the truth of this paradox: _such knowledge is dangerous while in power, but potentially powerful when used to unseat the system.
Opportunity or Opportunism?
As a citizen and as a son of one of the troubled regions, my concern is not the political theater of accusations and counter-accusations.
My concern is whether this moment can be leveraged to end a fratricidal conflict that has already lasted too long.
We must face a hard truth: every senior figure, in one way or another, has had a relationship with the secessionists.
These relationships are unacknowledged, but they exist.
Candidate ITB has simply crossed the Rubicon by admitting it openly.
The cost is obvious, political backlash, suspicion, accusations of betrayal.
The benefits, however, are possible: the beginnings of proximity, dialogue, and reconciliation.
To force a candidate to retract such an admission is to push the crisis back into the shadows where it festers.
To destroy a political figure for such a statement is also to destroy a potential avenue for peace.
As a society, we must decide whether to see this as opportunism to be punished, or as an opportunity to be grasped.
The court of public opinion
Nine years into this crisis, Cameroonians deserve more than deflections and denials.
We deserve leaders who will not only acknowledge the obvious, that the secessionists are part of our communities, but also take the risks needed to engage with them.
Candidate ITB’s statement now lies before the court of public opinion.
Will we, as a people, recognize that sustainable resolution requires proximity and engagement, not just military might and political denial?
Or will we punish any such admission as betrayal, ensuring the crisis continues indefinitely?
Looking ahead
The Anglophone Crisis has always had the potential to define the contours of Cameroon’s next republic.
The only uncertainty was how.
Today, we may be looking at one version of that future.
A candidate has crossed a dangerous line.
The question is whether we will use this moment to begin narrowing the gulf between the belligerents, or whether we will let politics once again trump peace.
The choice is ours. It is time to decide whether we want to preserve the crisis, or begin the slow work of ending it.