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

Source: Author’s Collection Source: Photo Ambition Fig. 4c: The Bafut Palace Rest House Fig. 4d: Achirimbi II awarded a Medal and Certificate by the British Government In 1946, Achirimbi was awarded a medal and certificate of honour: “as a record of valuable services rendered by him to his own country and people and to the British government … and loyal services given to the administration in the maintenance of good order (Niba, 1995:7; also see fig 4d).” The other chiefs did not take this kindly and thus under the leadership of the Fon of Babanki, the rest of the chiefs of the BNA contested the coveted position of the Fon of Bafut and requested the British to accept their demand for autonomy and separation from the BNA area. Fon Vubanghsi Vugah is quoted to have written: The Bafut chief has no authority over us … his authority is only limited to his own village….We have been independent villages before the advent of European administration on the West Coast of Africa, and are still independent and still wish to keep to our hereditary ways to remain like that. We the seven chiefs who make the Bafut Area should be called fons or village Heads in place of giving the title to the Bafut chief alone which is not correct (File N.A 1949/43, 1944). From this situation a number of things were made clear. First, in the Bafut Native Authority Area, respective chiefs guarded their autonomy so jealously that any mention of cooperation with another chief was viewed as a surrender of sovereignty. By 1949 it was clear that the delicate balance of power in the Bafut political system had been upset by the loss of sovereignty. The colonial masters made things worse following the way they handled issues related to the powers of chiefs. Here, when colonial authorities picked out the chief they wanted, he was supported to the exclusion of other organs of indigenous or traditional administration. Such was the case with subaltern leaders (chiefs) and Kwifor who now became tools in the hands of the all-powerful fon to carry out his obligations to the white man (colonialist). The independent position which the sub-chiefs, kwifor and takumbeng structures enjoyed in the past was therefore compromised. The British reinforced this feeling by the differential treatment they accorded the Fon. He was given a gilded state umbrella, a Union Jack to fly over the palace and a portrait of His Majesty the King of England (the sovereign) to display in the audience hall of his palace. These were new symbols of power introduced by the colonial master that were completely different from those that the African leaders in the Bamenda Division were accustom to (Ngwa, 2022: 141- 168). This in the long run constituted an arena of conflict amongst the Bafut leaders. Here the chiefs insisted to have their own power symbols (regalia) not so much out of love for the British flag and majesty but rather to boost their egos and power especially in the face of treats from the big chief to usurp and sap away their powers. Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 8 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D © 2023 Global Journals The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon