Dr Absalom Woloa Monono (L) and Barrister Henry Ngale Monono (R) are both candidates for the throne of Great Soppo
The people of Great Soppo are preparing to choose a successor to the late Chief Emmanuel Etina Monono amid a bitter dispute over royal ancestry, administrative influence and whether a serving Senior Divisional Officer can legally and practically become their traditional ruler.
Chief Etina died on May 7, 2026, after approximately 27 years on the throne. Correspondence reviewed by MMI News indicates that consultations involving the recognised kingmakers and customary authorities are scheduled for August 4.
But even before those consultations take place, Dr Absalom Woloa Monono, the serving SDO of Faro Division, is being publicly presented by his supporters as the most suitable—and, in some accounts, the inevitable—successor.
His candidacy has received the forceful backing of his elder brother, Ambassador Churchill Ewumbue-Monono, who serves as Cameroon’s Ambassador to Ethiopia and Permanent Representative to the African Union.
Supporters describe Dr Woloa as a prince from one of the royal branches of the Wofike family. His opponents say he does not descend biologically from the royal family and therefore cannot contest the throne.
The documents presently available do not conclusively settle that genealogy. However, Dr Woloa’s continuing position as a senior administrative authority raises another important question: Can a serving SDO become chief while remaining in office?
Dr Woloa’s candidature is not being advanced quietly.
On July 27, The Median newspaper dedicated its principal front-page story to his profile under the headline: “Who Is Prince Dr. Woloa Absolom Ewumbue-Monono?” It went further by describing his candidacy as “unchallengeable”.
Three days later, on July 30, the same newspaper led with Ambassador Churchill’s response to the rival camp, declaring that he had “dismantled” the arguments of Barrister Henry Ngale Monono and his supporters.
The newspaper’s second report acknowledged that Ngale Monono is another candidate for the throne and that he and Prince Richard Moki Monono had submitted an objection to the Fako SDO.
That fact alone makes the description of Dr Woloa’s candidacy as “unchallengeable” difficult to sustain. His candidacy has been formally challenged, another candidate exists, and the kingmakers have not yet conducted their consultations.
Churchill’s response also does not conclusively dispose of the rival claim. It provides a competing account of Great Soppo’s history and refers to government and family records that have not been presented alongside the statement.
The publicity does not prove that Dr Woloa commissioned or paid for the reports. It does, however, form part of a visible campaign around his candidature.
His elder brother’s letter does not simply establish his eligibility. It praises Dr Woloa’s leadership, maturity and suitability while portraying his principal rival as cowardly, mediocre and unfit for community leadership.
Taken together, this is not a passive candidacy. It is a deliberate contest to establish Dr Woloa’s legitimacy and authority before the recognised kingmakers meet on August 4.
He is entitled to defend his candidature. But his position as a serving SDO means that the methods, institutional relationships and advantages surrounding that campaign deserve closer scrutiny.
Dr Woloa was appointed SDO of Faro Division by a presidential decree signed on January 18, 2024. He had previously served as SDO in other divisions, including Momo and Mbam-et-Inoubou. The official appointment decree confirms his transfer to Faro.
As an SDO, he belongs to the senior administrative corps that supervises local administration, public order and the activities of traditional authorities.
Cameroon’s traditional chiefs are not entirely autonomous rulers. Under the 1977 decree governing chieftaincies, they operate as auxiliaries of the administration and are placed under the authority of the Ministry of Territorial Administration.
The Great Soppo consultations will not be chaired by Dr Woloa. Because Great Soppo is a second-degree chiefdom, the consultations fall under the Fako SDO, while the final appointment is made by the minister responsible for territorial administration.
Dr Woloa therefore has no formal authority to select himself.
Nevertheless, he is not competing from the same institutional position as an ordinary candidate. He is a serving member of the administrative corps controlling the consultation, recognition and supervision of chiefs across Cameroon.
His professional relationship with that system inevitably creates a power imbalance and a reasonable perception that he may have access, influence and institutional connections unavailable to his rivals.
That does not establish that he has pressured the Fako SDO, influenced the kingmakers or manipulated the process. No such direct evidence has been presented.
But responsible scrutiny does not begin only after interference has been proved. Where a candidate is himself a powerful administrative authority, safeguards must be established before the process—not after the community has been presented with a disputed outcome.
Article 17 of Decree No. 77/245 of July 15, 1977, states that a traditional chief must reside within the territory under his command.
It further provides that the functions of a traditional chief are incompatible with any other public function. The competent appointing authority may authorise a combination of functions in certain circumstances, particularly where the person concerned resides within the chiefdom. The decree is published by the Presidency of Cameroon.
The law does not expressly prohibit a civil servant from presenting himself as a candidate. But becoming chief while remaining in public office is not automatic.
Dr Woloa presently administers Faro Division from Poli, hundreds of kilometres from Great Soppo. His supporters say he owns and occupies part of the Wofike ancestral land in Great Soppo, but possessing a house or ancestral property is not necessarily the same as residing permanently within the chiefdom.
If selected, will he resign or retire as Faro SDO and relocate to Great Soppo?
Has he already sought authorisation to combine both functions? If not, does he intend to do so?
How would he continue administering Faro Division while satisfying the legal requirement that the Chief of Great Soppo reside within his territory?
Would an exception allowing him to retain both positions be consistent with the purpose of the residency requirement?
These are questions arising directly from the law. They cannot be dismissed as hostility towards his candidature.
Until they are answered, it is premature to describe his path to the throne as settled or “unchallengeable”.
The argument over Dr Woloa’s lineage did not begin with the current vacancy.
In a letter dated July 23, Prince Richard Moki Monono and Barrister Ngale Monono challenged his eligibility and asked the Fako SDO to consider DNA testing.
The petitioners identify themselves as sons of Chief Otto Ewumbua Monono, grandsons of Chief August Monono and brothers of the late Chief Etina.
They rely on a document dated May 14, 1999, titled “Historical Facts Regarding the Origin” of Jacob Ewumbue Monono and his descendants.
The document claims that Jacob, Dr Woloa’s father, was biologically descended from a man from Bwoanda village near Mile 16 and that his name was later changed to Jacob Ewumbue Monono. On that basis, its authors concluded that Jacob’s descendants bear the Monono name but do not belong biologically to the Wofike royal family.
The statement carries signatures attributed to representatives of nine Great Soppo families, including one person identified at the time as head of the Woso House.
If authenticated, the document demonstrates that the objection to Jacob’s ancestry existed during the 1999 succession. It is therefore not a new allegation created to frustrate Dr Woloa’s present candidature.
But the document is not conclusive proof of the biological account it presents. It contains no birth, baptismal or other contemporaneous records establishing the alleged paternity. The signatures, positions and authority of those who endorsed it have also not been independently verified.
In his July 28 response, Ambassador Churchill identifies himself as head of the Woso wo Fike House and rejects the allegation that his brother falls outside the royal family.
He says the Wofike family consists of three lineages—the Ewumbue, Woloa and Wose houses—and maintains that all three have historically produced chiefs.
According to him, Jacob Ewumbue Monono was selected by the Wofike family in 1963, traditionally installed on April 4, 1964, recognised by the West Cameroon Government in 1967 and entered in the April 1968 Register of Chiefs.
He describes Jacob as the eighth Chief of Great Soppo and says Dr Woloa claims eligibility through the Woso wo Fike lineage, which had previously produced Thomas Nganje Wose, identified as the sixth chief.
Churchill further argues that Jacob’s administrative recognition was withdrawn in 1972 because of political manipulation—not because he was found to be outside the royal family.
He also claims that some people associated with the 1999 statement subsequently apologised, while others were disowned by their respective families for signing without authority.
However, the alleged retractions were not attached to his response. Neither were the 1967 recognition, the 1968 register or the 1972 instrument withdrawing Jacob’s recognition.
Churchill’s official position and academic credentials do not independently authenticate the historical account he presents. Those records must be produced and examined.
There are significant inconsistencies requiring clarification.
The July 23 petition says Jacob was made chief in 1972 without the mandatory endorsement of the Wofike ruling house and was subsequently challenged and removed.
The 1999 historical statement, however, says Jacob merely attempted to ascend the throne during the early 1970s.
Churchill gives a third chronology, saying Jacob was selected in 1963, installed in 1964 and officially recognised in 1967.
Another document dated May 15, 1999, records the acceptance of Emmanuel Etina Monono as successor to “late Chief Otto Ewumbua Monono”. Churchill, however, maintains that Otto never received government recognition as Chief of Great Soppo during his lifetime.
These contradictions cannot be resolved through newspaper headlines, family insults or the status of those making the claims.
The West Cameroon Gazette, the April 1968 Register of Chiefs, the 1972 withdrawal instrument and the complete minutes of the 1999 consultations should reveal which parts of the competing accounts are supported by official records.
The rival camp has proposed DNA testing, offering to provide several members of the Wofike family as reference samples.
Cameroon’s chieftaincy decree does not require DNA testing. The documents normally submitted for a candidate include a birth certificate, criminal record and medical certificate—not genetic evidence.
DNA could potentially establish whether individuals share a biological relationship. But it would not automatically determine which family is customarily entitled to produce a chief.
It is also unclear which deceased ancestor would serve as the agreed reference point, how relationships between different Wofike branches would be measured and what form of testing could reliably settle a genealogy extending more than 200 years.
The legal question is broader than whether Dr Woloa shares recent DNA with the sons of Chief Otto. Under Article 8, the question is whether he belongs to a family customarily called upon to exercise traditional authority.
That must be determined through credible historical evidence and consultations with the competent customary authorities.
The language surrounding the succession has become increasingly hostile.
Churchill’s letter describes the rival claim as “stupidity”, “witchcraft” and “criminal impersonation”. It also attacks Ngale Monono personally and introduces an unverified allegation about Nigerian ancestry.
The petition against Dr Woloa, meanwhile, makes serious claims about the paternity of his late father and the legitimacy of his entire family branch.
These accusations concern identity, ancestry and belonging—extremely sensitive questions in any community. When expressed through insults and suggestions that one side consists of strangers or foreigners, they risk turning a succession disagreement into a wider social conflict.
Great Soppo deserves better than a process dominated by humiliation, ethnic insinuations and displays of official influence.
The Southwest Region and the wider English-speaking regions of Cameroon have endured years of armed conflict, killings, abductions, displacement and deep mistrust between communities and state institutions.
Great Soppo is a large and cosmopolitan community within Buea. Its residents need a chief capable of maintaining unity across different families, generations and ethnic groups.
A disputed selection perceived to have been imposed through administrative influence could leave divisions that continue long after the August 4 consultations.
Equally, excluding a legitimate candidate through an unproven genealogy or a disputed family document would create its own injustice.
That is why the process must be transparent—not only technically lawful.
The administration should clearly identify the recognised kingmakers and customary family heads permitted to participate.
The original historical and administrative records relied upon by both sides should be presented and examined.
Any participant with a conflict of interest should disclose it. The kingmakers must be able to express their positions freely, without intimidation from administrative officials, political actors, influential elites or either candidate’s supporters.
The consultation minutes should accurately record the candidates, objections, evidence presented and positions of the competent notables.
The administration should also clarify, before any appointment, how Dr Woloa intends to comply with the law on residence and incompatibility with public office.
Most importantly, the authorities must show that the outcome reflects Great Soppo’s established customs rather than the power, connections or public prominence of any candidate.
Dr Woloa’s position as SDO does not automatically disqualify him from presenting his candidature. But neither should it shield him from scrutiny or place him above other candidates.
His ancestry remains challenged. His ability to combine the throne with his present public function is unresolved. His residence outside Great Soppo raises a statutory question. An active and increasingly forceful campaign is already presenting him as the expected successor before the kingmakers have spoken.
These facts cannot responsibly be ignored.
The August 4 consultations will therefore test more than two competing claims to a throne. They will test whether Great Soppo’s kingmakers can exercise their customary responsibility independently when one candidate is a serving senior administrator supported by a highly placed diplomat and a strong public campaign.
Great Soppo has already lost a chief remembered by many for peace and unity. It should not emerge from his succession more divided than it was before.
The community deserves a transition guided by verified history, established custom and the law—not by administrative rank, family insults, political connections or the loudest campaign.
Several people in Bamenda have accused Ngepah Henrietta Jupsia of collecting millions of FCFA from…
Fopa Kuete Duclaire, a 23-year-old student at the University of Dschang, has won the 10…
Cameroonian peacebuilder and humanitarian leader Esther Omam has received two distinctions within one month, marking…
Rev. Fr. George Jingwa Nkeze, former President of the Catholic University Institute of Buea (CUIB),…
The University of Wolverhampton has awarded Cameroonian-born health advocate Marie-Claire Kofi an Honorary Fellowship in…
Human rights defender Sally Ndape remains in Buea Central Prison despite being granted bail and…