Tapang Ivo Tanku is a prominent figure in the ongoing Anglophone crisis in Cameroon. From his position as the interim leader of the defunct Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium to his role as the spokesperson for the Ambazonia Defence Forces (ADF), Tapang embodies the concept of transitioning from one extreme to the other. It is therefore not surprising that Tapang has become a controversial figure—revered by supporters of the Ambazonian cause and vilified by victims of the conflict who see him as a major destabilising force and the source of so much pain to many.
But the question many have been asking is whether Tapang is just the typical activist who changed positions or if he is a selfish, egoistic individual who did everything he could to achieve personal ambitions, even at the cost of many lives.
The Role of a Diaspora Activist
Based in the United States, Tapang Ivo Tanku undeniably played a critical role in the internationalisation of the Anglophone crisis. Through social media platforms and public statements, he amplifies the grievances of Cameroon’s English-speaking minority, who have long complained of political and economic marginalisation by the Francophone-dominated government. For many Anglophones, Tapang at the time represented a voice of resistance, speaking out against what they perceive as systemic oppression.
However, all that changed as Tapang’s rhetoric and actions turned to hurting the very people he had been advocating for. He openly supports the armed struggle against Cameroonian government forces. But more than that, he has been openly complicit in violence against civilians. In a 2017 interview, Tapang stated,
“People have seen family members arrested and killed, and they have switched over,” in a lame attempt to justify a shift towards armed resistance among Anglophones.
But the reality is that the armed resistance has not been in favour of Anglophones; it has largely been against them.
Adding to this, there is tangible evidence of Tapang advocating for extreme measures that have further divided the Anglophone population. Notably, he has supported the banning of schools in the region while going on to achieve a PhD in the USA. This tactic that they claimed was aimed at undermining the government’s authority ultimately resulted in tens of thousands of children without access to education. All this while Tapang and others like him were busy enriching themselves with education. Critics argue that this has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis and robbed a generation of children of their future.
In addition, there is evidence of Tapang’s endorsement of kidnappings as a means to raise funds and instill fear. There is video evidence of him asking Ambazonia fighters to abduct civilians, including prominent figures and expatriates, to extract ransoms. Such actions have drawn widespread condemnation from human rights organisations, which have highlighted the severe psychological and economic toll these kidnappings have taken on affected communities. In many cases, kidnapped victims have died in detention, and some have been killed after ransom was paid.
Links to Lucas Ayaba Cho
Tapang’s close association with Lucas Ayaba Cho, the leader of the Ambazonia Governing Council (AgovC) and the ADF, has further cemented his place in the spotlight, for the wrong reasons. Both men share a vision of an independent Ambazonia and have worked closely to advance this goal. However, Ayaba Cho’s recent arrest in Norway on charges of inciting crimes against humanity has cast a shadow over their movement.
If Ayaba Cho is found guilty, the implications for Tapang could be profound. The separatist movement’s credibility would suffer a significant blow, and Tapang’s own activities could come under greater scrutiny. Legal actions targeting diaspora activists have already begun; in 2018, a California-based lawyer filed a lawsuit against Tapang, alleging that he provided material support to terrorist activities. While the case was ultimately dismissed, it highlighted the legal vulnerabilities faced by separatist leaders operating abroad.
Ayaba Cho’s arrest has forced the separatist movement to reassess its strategies and leadership dynamics. Tapang has publicly defended Ayaba Cho, framing the arrest as an attempt to suppress the Ambazonia cause. At the same time, he has sought to portray the trial as an opportunity to highlight the movement’s grievances on the international stage.
However, Ayaba Cho’s legal problems should concern Tapang if he understands how the international legal system works.
This is because Tapang is largely a provocateur whose rhetoric fuels a conflict that has brought untold suffering to civilians. Human rights organizations have documented abuses by both government forces and separatist groups, including kidnappings, extrajudicial killings, and the destruction of villages. Critics argue that leaders like Tapang hold moral responsibility for perpetuating the violence, even if they remain physically distant from the conflict zones.
But in Tapang’s case, as is the case with Ayaba Cho Lucas, he has been openly inciting violence against civilians.
Analyst Perspectives
A political analyst familiar with the Anglophone crisis provided further insight into Tapang’s methods and motivations:
“Many individuals, such as Tapang, adopt extreme measures to garner media attention—a tactic that is often necessary to secure asylum claims,” he said.
This refers to the fact that many political asylum cases are often denied because it is asserted the claimant’s profile is not high enough for them to come to the attention of the authorities. As such, many do what it takes to show that they have either been mentioned in the media or that the authorities know them.
“I recall an instance when Tapang shared an image of himself on the front page of a newspaper with the word ‘Wanted’—an image that turned out to be fake,” the analyst said.
While MMI has not been able to ascertain if Tapang himself did claim asylum, it is, however, clear that as someone who went to the USA on a student visa, he would have needed a ground to get residence. Hence, there are speculations that he might have attempted this through his child. Tapang fought for custody against Ndifon Carine in a case which many thought was linked to citizenship rather than genuine love for their child.
“There was also an online dispute between Tapang and Carine, the mother of his child, where he asserted custody. This might have been an attempt to bolster his application for US citizenship,” the analyst said.
But he is not the only one who has taken advantage of the crisis in Cameroon to create an opportunity in the diaspora.
“Broadly speaking, many supporters of the Ambazonia struggle are driven by the prospect of obtaining asylum. Notoriety is seen as an advantage because ‘low-level activists are often not known by the Cameroonian government.”
These remarks show that personal and pragmatic motives may sometimes drive extremism within the movement, going beyond purely ideological commitments.
What Lies Ahead for Tapang Ivo Tanku?
As the Anglophone crisis drags on, Tapang Ivo Tanku remains a pivotal figure. Many of the victims of his incitement will find closure if he is made accountable for his role. His ability to navigate the fallout from Ayaba Cho’s legal troubles will likely determine his future. If he can adapt to the shifting landscape, he may secure some leniency for his contributions to the escalation of the conflict. However, failure to do so could leave him vulnerable to legal challenges and erode any influence he may have had.
For the time being, Tapang maintains a delicate balance between his role as a representative of a radical group that has hijacked the separatist movement and turned their guns on civilians and the mounting legal and moral difficulties of spearheading a separatist movement entangled in a convoluted and violent conflict.
Whatever the case, Tapang’s story is a microcosm of the broader struggle. A struggle that began as a clarion call for the liberation of a marginalised people and quickly metamorphosed into the imprisonment of the same people. His story is one that encapsulates the hopes, fears, and contradictions of the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon. A crisis that started with the hope of freedom, but quickly turned into the very tyranny the people dreaded.
