Why We Must Ask Questions About Maurice Kamto and the Anglophone Crisis

The ongoing Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon has for years demanded courageous leadership, tangible engagement, and total dedication from all political actors. Recently, Professor Maurice Kamto, leader of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC), pledged that if elected president in October 2025, the North West (NW) and South West (SW) regions will be the first areas he visits—delivering a message of peace and hope.

This pledge is notable. Yet, it also invites reflection. Why, over the six years since the crisis escalated, have these regions remained largely inaccessible to key opposition figures, including Kamto? Why does political engagement with the crisis often appear symbolic, cautious, or conditional rather than direct and sustained? And how should journalists responsibly ask these questions, even when faced with accusations of bias or bad faith?

The Reality Check: Kamto’s Record in Context

It is important to recognise that Maurice Kamto has taken several significant stands on the Anglophone Crisis:

• 2017–2018: He publicly acknowledged the crisis’s roots and advocated for dialogue. His 2018 presidential campaign, however, did not include direct visits to the NW/SW regions—he cited government refusals to provide a military escort as a barrier. Instead, he campaigned in Bonaberi, an Anglophone refugee hub in Douala.
• 2019: Kamto’s political activism culminated in protests demanding peace and transparency, resulting in his arrest and nine-month imprisonment—a sacrifice that highlights his commitment. He called on activists and supporters to channel financial and material support through the Ayah Foundation.
• 2020: The MRC boycotted regional elections, asserting that no credible process could occur amid ongoing violence. However, while the violence has not stopped, he has decided to contest the 2025 elections.
• 2025: Kamto promises that his first official presidential visit will be to the Anglophone regions. Nevertheless, that is conditional on him winning the elections.

These actions are meaningful. But they raise further questions that go beyond symbolic gestures.

Symbolism vs. Substance: The Challenge of Political Engagement

The refusal to or inability to visit the conflict zones until one attains power reflects a broader issue in Cameroonian politics. This is the politicisation and securitisation of access to Anglophone regions. The government’s military operations and administrative restrictions have created real barriers, limiting physical presence and campaigning.

Yet, this does not fully absolve opposition leaders. Political leadership demands risk-taking and courage. Genuine engagement requires more than distant rallies in exile communities or pledges conditional on winning office.

When political actors, including Kamto, condition their visits on election victory, it suggests a transactional approach to peace. This implies therefore that the afflicted regions become political bargaining chips rather than priorities of urgent concern.

Conflict Beyond the Anglophone Regions: A National Challenge

While the Anglophone Crisis has captured international attention for its intensity and complexity, it is far from Cameroon’s only security challenge. The northern regions of the country, particularly the Far North, have long suffered from the violent insurgency of Boko Haram. The outfit is a terrorist group designated as such by multiple governments and international bodies. This conflict has led to countless deaths, displacements, and persistent insecurity.

Moreover, the East and South regions face threats from cross-border banditry, intercommunal violence, and insecurity fuelled by porous borders with the Central African Republic and the Republic of the Congo. These conflicts contribute to a national landscape of instability, which cannot be ignored.

In this context, MMI’s questions take on an even broader urgency:

• If Professor Kamto cannot safely visit the Anglophone regions during his campaign, what about the Northern regions plagued by Boko Haram attacks?
• If the East and South are also unsafe for political activity, does that mean the campaign—and by extension, political leadership—is effectively confined to just three regions: West, Littoral, and Centre?
• And even in those regions, which are not immune to unrest and political tension, what does limited geographic engagement mean for national unity and representation?

These are not merely tactical questions about campaign logistics. These are questions which strike at the heart of Cameroon’s democratic health and territorial integrity.

For any political leader serious about governing Cameroon, the ability and willingness to engage with all parts of the country, especially those suffering violence and marginalisation, is non-negotiable. To claim to represent all Cameroonians while avoiding conflict zones risks alienating millions and deepening divisions.

The Media’s Role: Scrutiny Is Not Hostility

MMI’s original question was straightforward: why haven’t key opposition figures made efforts to visit the Anglophone regions, regardless of the political risks? And will these visits only happen if they win power?

This line of inquiry triggered a defensive and personal response from the MRC, including accusations that MMI instrumentalise the crisis or engage in unfair journalism. Most significantly, supporters of the MRC decided to focus on Mimi Mefo Newuh, the founder of MMI and directed their attacks at her personally. Such accusations are concerning for several reasons:

First, defensiveness undermines accountability, as constructive criticism should be an invitation to clarify and deepen engagement, not a trigger for personal attacks. Secondly, personalising journalism is dangerous given the landscape of Cameroon. Attacking journalists personally—rather than addressing the substance of their questions—risks chilling free press, especially in a context where independent journalism already faces intimidation. Thirdly, questioning power is essential in a democratic society. The success of democracy depends on the media’s capacity to hold all power centres accountable, including opposition leaders who aspire to govern.

A Call for Courageous Leadership

Maurice Kamto’s past activism, imprisonment, and political stance earn respect. But the ongoing crisis demands more. It demans unwavering, consistent presence and leadership, even in places where risk is real.

Peace in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions will not come from campaign promises or post-election visits alone. It will require ongoing, visible commitment now, in the midst of conflict and displacement—not only after political victory.

This means:

• Attempting safe, possibly symbolic visits even without government approval to show solidarity.
• Engaging with displaced populations both inside and outside the conflict zones.
• Proposing and advocating concrete political reforms to address root causes transparently and consistently.

Final Reflections

Journalists do not ask these questions to undermine or politicise suffering. We ask because truth, transparency, and accountability are foundational to peace.

If political leaders cannot endure these questions or respond with openness, it suggests a deeper problem in Cameroon’s politics. It is a reluctance to confront hard realities.

Mimi Mefo Newuh and MMI remain committed to reporting these realities honestly and respectfully. We reject personal attacks and urge all political actors to embrace public scrutiny as a vital part of democratic leadership.

The Anglophone Crisis will only be resolved through courage, both political and journalistic.

Mimi Mefo Info