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

financial benefits such as rebates on poll tax collection, and special duties. They also received efficiency bonuses from the Ministry of Territorial Administration (MINAT). These extra bonuses depended on the chiefs’ dynamism, output and recommendations from the Prefects or Sub-Prefects. Chiefs of the first grade received as salary the sum of 100, 000 Frs. CFA while 75, 000 Francs were allocated to chiefs of the second category. Chiefs of the third category received 50,000 Francs. On discipline, administrative authorities were to evaluate the activities of the chiefs in their administrative areas taking into consideration their efficiency, output and the economic and social development of the areas under their jurisdiction. In the event of any shortcoming, inertia or extortion from citizens, chiefs were to be sanctioned accordingly. Sanctions included call to order, warning, ordinary reprimand, reprimand with suspension of all allowances for a period of time and finally, deposition. All disputes arising from the appointment of Traditional Rulers were to be brought before the authority vested with the powers of appointment and his decision should be final. Matters were to be resolved in conformity with the dispositions of another law (Law No. 79-17, 1979). With this arrangement, all other previous regulations related to chieftaincy institution were henceforth repealed. By extension therefore, on 30 June 1979, the President of the Republic, further enacted a law related to disputes arising from the appointment of traditional rulers (Ibid.). It stated that all such disputes should be brought before the authority vested with the power of appointment and his decision should be final. However, the decision taken might be revoked by the competent authority if such authority felt that he was misled. On 27 November 1980, another law was further enacted defining the competent jurisdiction in charge of affairs related to opposition raised on the occasion of the appointment or designation of traditional chiefs (Loi No.80-31, 1980). According to the law, all law courts and practitioners of common law and administrative status were barred from intervening or having jurisdiction over all matters brought before it in relation to protest against the designation of a chief. The matters were to be resolved in conformity with disposition or prescriptions of law No. 79-17 of June 1979. With all these chieftaincy arrangements made, on 7 February 1981, the Prime Minister issued an arrête determining First Class Chiefdoms and appointing first class chiefs in the United Republic (Arrête No. 019/CAB/PM, 1981). By this arrête , the Bafut fon dom and its leader, Abumbi II were recognised as first class chiefdom and chief respectively. On 19 January 1982, the Minister in charge of Territorial Administration issued an order determining second class chiefdoms and chiefs in the national territory. According to the order, the Chiefdoms of Mambu, Bawum, Banji, Mankwi, Obang, Mbekong, Mankanikong and Nsem were made second class chiefdoms in Bafut (Order No. 36, 1982). This arrangement brought in a new traditional chieftaincy organisation in Bafut in the post-colonial era. It was to an extent different from arrangements that had existed under the Colonial and West Cameroon governments. By this act, Government seem to have official and formally ratified the existence of states within a state in Bafut in modern times. These new arrangements came with their own problems which generated conflict and aggravated other problems of relations within the Bafut community. IV. T he S ystem of R elations and the I ssue of A utonomous S tates within B afut The system of relations established in Bafut and even till date is so complex that political wrangles, tussles, are common place amongst its leaders. The present deadlock keeps many wanting as to what is the way forward and when peace and harmonious cohabitation will return in this great fon dom. However, the cultural environment and the traditional setting of the area in which the fon dom is situated (North West region of Cameroon) is also a contributory factor. To begin with, in the Bamenda Grassfields, the natural rulers were people who had special duties and roles to play in the social, political and economic life of their people. Their authority over them was legally recognized. They had the capacity and legitimate right to command. They were endowed with privileges and duties of the supreme judge, head of the army, chief priest or supreme ritual head (Robert and Pat Ritzenthaler, 1962:27). In fact, the various duties, activities, rights, prerogatives and privileges of these natural rulers make up a single unified whole. Also, the traditional rulers were the axes of political relations in the societies in this area. The people and the subordinate chiefs saw the fons as the symbols of their unity and exclusiveness, and the embodiment of their essential values. The fons (in line with pre-colonial traditional norms) were more than secular rulers and their credentials were believed to be mystical and derived from antiquity (Fortes and Pritchard, 1967:16). A distortion of this arrangement at any given time in history led to conflict. Since German period three great fons have ruled Bafut namely, Abumbi I, Achirimbi II and presently Abumbi II (see figs 5a, b and c). © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 11 ( ) 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