Global Journal of Human Social Science, D: History, Archaeology and Anthroplogy, Volume 23 Issue 3

eventually reinstated and recognised as ‘a convenient agent of administration’ and so long as he danced to their tune, he went unmolested. Bafut internal affairs were on the whole left alone (Chilver and Kaberry, 1963:94). The interpretation given to this arrangement holds that the Germans identified the Fon of Bafut as the only leader of substance and empowered him within the context of colonial rule. Whatever happened between the Fon and his subaltern chiefs inside Bafut that was not part of German business in the area. Thus such favoured fons exploited the German presence to grow their power and influence to prominence in the area. In fact, the favoured fons took decisions in state politics when consulted by the colonial administration. But one aspect of German responsibility which they did not border about were the smaller states they coerced and brought into union with bigger chiefdoms to constitute a larger state. The colonialist neglected the smaller states and allowed them on their own to face the wrath, whims and caprices of their superior or paramount leaders. It is important to note here that German actions in the Bamenda area were viewed from the backdrop of the Bali Nyonga paramountcy and the treaty Zintgraff concluded with Galega in 1891. Here Galega formerly surrendered his powers of execution and war-making to the Germans in return for sovereignty right over the surrounding non-Bali who were mostly widikum peoples. Galega was to collect taxes and tolls from those chiefdoms placed under him and was the main labour recruiter for the Germans. This constituted the principal policy of German administration and state organisation in the Bamenda area namely, to prop up friendly chiefs wherever they could be found and to place as many smaller ones as possible under them as vassals. This was the German dimension of creating ‘states within a state’ in Africa. The realisation of this policy for the entire Bamenda District was problematic since it required the complete subjugation of the area in order to unite people under leaders other than their own (Niba, 1995:66). In the absence of support, there was no option left than for the small states to indulge in power tussles and wrangles with their superiors in the bid to liberate themselves from oppression. Songs of freedom and independence became common place even within local and ‘remote’ communities. In such circumstances, peace made no meaning to anybody and peace ventures ended in deadlock given that all moves towards peace were punctured by persistent bitterness, envy and conflicts. Expressions such as ‘self-determination’ became pivotal in state politics and relations. By 1916, German colonial administration gave way to British and French administration. The British had their own method of state organisation or better still, creating states within a state. They opted to involve natives in colonial administration following the prescriptions of Indirect Rule policy. Besides, the Resident for Bamenda, E.C Duff advised that for native administration to succeed it was necessary to enhance the powers of the principal chiefs in the area by appointing them presidents of the native courts while subaltern chiefs and even ward-heads within the ‘principal communities’ ( fon doms) were to be recognised and brought in to support the principal chiefs as court members (File Ja/d, 1916). In this arrangement, the disparity in the powers of the Chief ( fon ) and his subaltern (sub-chief) began to surface in the British colonial political system. It was also the beginning of British implantation of states within a state in African communities as viewed by the people. In July 1917, G.S. Podevin, the District Officer, inaugurated an ‘Instructional Court’ in Bamenda (The Nigerian Gazette, 1922:331). This was an assembly of chiefs from surrounding communities summoned to be instructed in the new native court. Twenty- seven chiefs made up the court and the Fon of Bafut was appointed president while that of Bali Kumbat was vice president. In the minds of the chiefs, the Fon of Bafut has automatically become the boss and superior in a new political set up (state). They have eventually assumed subaltern positions under him and by extension it was another ploy to create new states within a state. In August 1932, the Bafut Fon, Abumbi, died and was succeeded by his son, Su Ayieh, who took the royal name of Achirimbi, and ruled for the remaining years of British administration. Almost at the same time, in 1936, Fon Vugar of Babanki also died and was succeeded by his son Vubanghsi. The two fons , Achirimbi and Vubanghsi Vugah, belonged to the Bafut Native Authority Area (BNAA) which was later on re- organised into the South Eastern Federation Native Authority Area (SEFNAA). These fons had received some elementary western education under the Germans and were expected to boost the new organisation under the British, given their level of education. But the situation turned out to be the opposite. In the BNA area, the element of Bafut ‘paramountsy’ remained with the Bafut Fon who was regarded as the most important dignity and received the highest stipend from colonial administration (Niba, 1995:70). This position was reinforced by the creation of a treasury at the Bafut palace in 1941 to serve the entire native authority area. In 1943, through the assistance of the Bassel Mission architects, a monumental rest house was constructed in the Bafut palace (see fig. 4c). © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 7 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon