Oscar Njiki emphasizes that the Constitution of Cameroon upholds the principle of citizen equality. Rights are determined by citizenship, not by one’s ethnic or geographic origins. He argues that indigeneity is fundamentally a cultural identity, not a basis for legal superiority.

His detailed analysis is presented below:

1) Can a Cameroonian citizen be considered indigenous everywhere in Cameroon?

No. Indigeneity is not an inherent quality bestowed by citizenship. It is deeply rooted in a shared memory, ancestral lineage, and historical connection to a specific territory. Merely acquiring land, settling, or investing in a place does not confer indigenous status. Indigenous communities possess an inherent, almost spiritual, link to their ancestral lands, viewing them as an extension of their very identity. The customary rights associated with these lands are not transferable through simple commercial transactions; they cease to exist upon such a transfer.

ONE CANNOT BE INDIGENOUS EVERYWHERE.

2) Is indigeneity a prerequisite for feeling at home?

Absolutely not. Citizenship rises above the concept of indigeneity. Every Cameroonian is inherently at home throughout the entire national territory. The legitimacy of their presence and settlement does not depend on their origins but on their fundamental belonging to the national community. Being a Cameroonian citizen grants an individual the right to reside in places like Yaoundé, Bangangté, or Maroua, without any condition of indigeneity.

EVERY CAMEROONIAN CITIZEN IS AT HOME THROUGHOUT CAMEROON.

3) Does an indigenous person hold unrestricted rights within their own village?

No. Even within a village, space is governed by property rights. Individuals own their land, homes, and fields. Indigeneity does not grant permission to violate private property or appropriate the belongings of others. A non-indigenous landowner in a village is fully at home on their property, as legal possession establishes rights recognized by law.

INDIGENEITY DOES NOT GRANT ALL RIGHTS TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, NOR DOES NON-INDIGENEITY REVOKE THE RIGHTS OF NON-INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

4) Does an indigenous person possess more rights in their village compared to a non-indigenous resident?

No. The law is singular and applies equally to all. The Constitution guarantees the equality of all citizens. Rights are derived from citizenship, not from one’s origin. Indigeneity serves as a cultural identity, not a legal advantage.

INDIGENOUS AND NON-INDIGENOUS CITIZENS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.

5) Exception: The law does stipulate that certain positions—such as city mayor and regional council president—are reserved for indigenous individuals. However, for all other elective offices, including deputies, municipal mayors, and councilors, no condition of indigeneity is required.

THE LAW RESERVES TWO POSITIONS FOR INDIGENOUS INDIVIDUALS, BUT ALL OTHER ELECTIVE POSTS ARE OPEN TO ALL CITIZENS, BOTH INDIGENOUS AND NON-INDIGENOUS.

Ultimately, the discussion surrounding indigeneity and non-indigeneity proves to be a fruitless endeavor. It traps citizens within fragmented loyalties and diverts attention from truly vital matters: our shared national future. What truly matters is not the competition of origins, but the convergence of our collective destinies. Indigeneity and non-indigeneity should not be tools for division, but rather cultural realities integrated within a unified and indivisible Republic.

We must collectively look towards the future, as children of a single nation, rather than as rival micro-states within the country. For Cameroon’s future will not be built on fragmentation, but on unity, solidarity, and a shared understanding of a common destiny.

OSCAR NJIKI