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

retain their hereditary sub-chiefs’ privileges and titles. The retaining of these rights by Ntoh of Bawum and Wanki of Mambu was not through peaceful means but through strong political competition and conflict (Aletum, 1974:31). In fact the usurpation spirit of the Tikar leader was at extreme and as time went on, the conflict multiplied and increased in magnitude. The conflicts were openly manifested during colonial rule. Aletum further state that the seizure of the throne of Nibachi, the chief of the autochthones in Mbebeli, by the Tikar leader on his arrival, to him was “a palace coup d’Etat ” that effaced the political influence of the chiefdom of Mbebeli, whose leader, Nibachi, lost his throne to the Tikar leader called Aghanjo (Ibid.). As time went on, the Tikar leader in Bafut consolidated his authority in a new palace that was constructed in a valley referred to today as Mumelaa. From Mumelaa, the Tikar leader began to wield a lot of power and control over the rest of the chiefdoms in the area. For the fact that the political institution of the Mumelaa chiefdom were far superior to those of the other chiefdoms in the area, the authority of the Bafut leader of Tikar origin grew stronger. Open confrontation and political conflicts became common. On the one hand, Aletum noted, in some of the semi-autonomous chiefdoms, the political institution were subdued but not to the point of rendering them entirely ineffective. These institutions in the chiefdoms, though weak, still exist, but always as a point of conflict. The conflicts are manifested in many different ways, cutting across the Bafut society and the core of traditional politics in the fon dom. The intension of the chiefs of the semi-autonomous chiefdom had been to break away from the main society to establish or gain full autonomy over their chiefdoms in the area (Ibid.). However, colonial rule aggravated the situation beginning with the Germans. German colonial intrusion into Bafut was felt for the first time around 1889, with the arrival of the first white man, Dr. Eugen Zintgraff (a German explorer) in the Bamenda Grassfields. The presence of Zintgraff in the area terrified the Bafut people and their Fon, Abumbi I, and caused much anxiety and uneasiness among them. Abumbi I was unwilling to accept German colonial rule and it was after a series of wars the Germans from 1900 to 1906 that he was compelled to succumb to German rule (Niba, 1986: 86-101). As time went on, traditional authority in Bafut suffered some mutations, difficult for the ordinary Bafut person to understand. German rule in Bafut saw the emergence of conflict within the traditional political system caused by ignorance and the desire to protect interests. Internal cleavages between the groups of people in Bafut were conspicuous. They remained competitive with each other, giving rise to political competition among the natural rulers. With the establishment of German rule in Bafut, the traditional political institutions appeared to be dormant. But, even with the dormant nature, the institution remained the core of political competition and political conflict, prepared for action when the opportunity presented itself (Aletum, 1974: 31). The situation was aggravated when Bafut came under British rule. British colonial rule served as a catalyst that activated tension among the Bafut leaders. British rule brought stress in relations between the Bafut Fon and his chiefs. Effervescence was added to old personality conflict and skirmishes that existed between the Fon and his chiefs in the past. First, before the arrival of the British, the status of the traditional rulers in Bafut was well defined. The different people addressed their leaders as nfor (king). The status of the most influential of them, who was at the head of the kingdom, was distinguished from those of the subordinates by praise names such as ati-njong- njong (thorny tree), munah-ngwe (the leopard cub), nongubu (a python), mooh-kwifor (son of kwifor), tsa- bufor or atsah-te-ye yah (he who passes and his footpath cannot be traced) (Suh and Mbungwa, 1995:7). When the British established their rule in the area, they started differentiating the traditional rulers by using titles like “paramount chief” and “sub-chief”. In Bafut, Abumbi I and later on Achirimbi II were recognised as paramount chiefs. No other leader within the fon dom was recognised as such. When the title ‘ fon ’ was later adopted and popularised in the Bamenda Grassfields, the title received official recognition in the circles of colonial administration. Thus, the colonial masters recognised only one traditional ruler of great importance in Bafut in official circles as “ fon ”. This title thus became a source of conflict among the traditional leaders in Bafut. As time went on, the conflict became tense and has continued unabated in recent times. However, the problem was not with the title per se. It was with the colonial privileges and duties that went with it. The Fon’s duty to collect taxes, rates and dues in his jurisdiction caused the closer relationship between the chiefs and the Fon to dwindle and the authority of the Fon over the semi-autonomous chiefdoms began to be weakened. The chiefs refused to pay tributes to the Fon of Bafut and the controversy was that they viewed the tax rebates retained by the Fon as a substitute for tributes from the people in the various chiefdoms (Chilver and Kaberry, 1960:1-9). In 1948, Nanoh, the chief of Obang village or chiefdom took a bold step and gave the spark of the struggle for sovereignty when, for 2 years, he refused to pay his tributes of 2 tins of oil and 2 baskets of dry fish (per annum) to the Fon, Achirimbi II (File Ab(1926)3, 1926; File No. 213). Achirimbi on his part decided to sue Nanoh to court. Yet, before Achirimbi could have time to settle the dispute with Nanoh, news reached him that Talah, the chief of Banji, had confiscated a leopard meant for him as tribute, and made use of the meat, skin and whiskers (Criminal Case no.85/1949, 1951; File No 2408). Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 14 ( ) 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