About Scribbles

  • Dibussi Tande

    This weblog is based on DIBUSSI TANDE's personal views on people, places, issues and events in Cameroon, Africa and the world!


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz



  • Jimbi Media

« Wikileaks: China's Growing Presence in Cameroon | Main | The Army As The Central Factor In The Success of "Street Revolutions" »

December 26, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


pamper the hands that feed you...

Chief Ayuk Arrey

Thank you very-much Dr.Fomunyoh ,but you didn't report on the case of ballot box stuffing at Ouattara's Northern strong hold ?
What ever has happened has happen, Mr.Ouattara should go to the negotiating table, Violence or Military aggression has never solved a Political crisis in any part of the world.
Please kindly tell Mr. Ouattara that many of us sympathised with Pres.Gbagbo because we fear he Ouattara will be a western tool who is out to serve Western Interest. If truly he loves the nation of Ivory Coast, then he should go for dialogue rather than waiting for Obama,Sarkozy,U.N and Nigeria to make him the President.


Mr Fomunyoh
I have to disagree with the second point of your assessment. The UN troops were not a lifesaver for Gbgbo between 2002-2005 at all. In fact it was quite the opposite.
The loyal army FANCI launched a military operation at the end of 2004 and reached the outskirts of Bouake within a week. If it wasn't for that mysterious bombing of the french base in Bouake, FANCI would have won and reunited the country.

But they had to be stopped for the artificial split of the country to remain inchanged.
The french took the opportunity of that mysterious bombing to step in and rescue the rebels based in Bouake.
I say again your point number 2 is wrong and purpusely misleading. And to me, just for that I have serious doubt over the objectivity of the rest of your analysis.


An Observer

With this kind of analysis,i suggest you join the other three African head of states on Tuesday in Abidjan to persuade the mouthy Gbagbo to hand over power or face the military hammer.
Ouattara won the elections and that is simple.


1. All "... the peace agreements – Pretoria, Marcousis, Ouagadougou – and various UN Security Council resolutions have to be integrated into an understanding of the legal framework that governed the elections."

They all called for the disarming and demobilisation of the rebels supporting Ouatarra and the re-unification of the country. Why did the UN and their French forces will all the resources not disarm the rebels between 2002 and 2010?

2."The UN forces were a lifesaver for the Gbagbo government when the armed rebellion first broke, because without the 10,000 man strong force that served as a buffer between rebel-held North and government-controlled South, the rebels (or Forces Nouvelles) would have matched on Abidjan between 2002 – 2005"

Factually wrong. Jean has corrected you.

3.4.5.: "UN Certification was a written precondition agreed to by all Ivorian parties: The UN Secretary General’s Special Representative (UNSGSR) is not an interloper in the Ivorian electoral process. His role was agreed upon by all Ivorian parties in the Pretoria Accord negotiated by former South African President Thabo Mbeki in 2005. Later, and at the behest of all Ivorian parties, the African Union asked the UN Security Council to ratify the certification process, which the UN Security Council did in Resolution 1765 of July 2007."

The UN is an interloper! The time to have certified or not certified the elections should have been after the Constitutional Council's proclamation of the results. That was the agreement. The process: The Electoral Commission provides PROVISIONAL results (within 3 days) -> Constitutional Council provides FINAL results -> UN CERTIFIES OR NOT. But what happened? The electoral comission, unable to meet the legally mandated 3 days window, foreclosed and forwarded the dossiers to the constitutional council. As the constitutional council was doing its work, the French and American ambassadors picked up the head of the electoral commission and escorted him to Ouatarra's HQ under that is under armed rebel guard and provided him the results to read to France24 TV cameras.

6. You are quick to question the composition of the Constitutional Council but not that of the Electoral Commission that had Ouatarra's coalition in the majority and was headed by a member of that coalition.

7. "‘Ultra vires’ principle: Did the Constitutional Council exceed its powers? There is respectable legal opinion that the Constitutional Council acted beyond its powers. The Ivorian Electoral Code does not authorize the Council to undertake a partial annulment of election results. Rather, Article 64 of the Code merely stipulates that should the Council find irregularities that could affect the outcome of the election, the council shall annul the entire election and order a rerun to be conducted within 45 days of the date of the council’s ruling. How could the Council then be rendering justice by annulling elections in only seven divisions (all situated in the Center and Northern parts of the country), thereby eliminating over 600,000 votes from the total of one of the candidates, and reversing the preliminary outcome of the election as announced by the IEC? Moreover, the ruling was based on an ‘ex parte motion’ which did not allow the other party with interest in the matter time or notice to be heard or to respond to the charges."

Not being a lawyer, I will avoid legal arguments but I will like to know if Mr Fomunyoh has read the decision of the Ivoirian Constitutional Council.

At the beginning of the counting the final tally, the IEC said participation was 70% (that is in the public domain). But some how 600,000 votes materialised to push participation to 81%.


Isn't it funny that if one supports Ouattara, he is a western Lackey" but if he supports Gbabgo he is "African"... reminds me of those extreme right wing folks in America who believes that if a black person supports Obama he must be doing so solely because of race.

The bottom line is that Gbagbo and Ouattara have been occupying the ivorian political scene for 2 decades now, and as Dr. Fomunyoh's piece clearly shows, they were both in alliance at one point... before Gbagbo the "pan-africanist" decided that it was politically expedient to reclaim Bedie's "ivoirite" policy and instrumentalize it as a tool to marginalize the Northern elite.

No both politicians like the rest of their African ilk are cankerworms that eat deep into the fabric of African society. And both of them, along with their henchmen Soro and Goude need to be tried for treason. Only then will Cote D'Ivoire regain its lost heritage.

And in this context, who won the elections is irrelevant, just as who is supported by whom is equally irrelevant. Both systems are toxic for CIV and toxic for Africa


If you want to show it through ethnical criteria, you're totally wrong... The number 2 of Gbagbo's political party FPI is from the Northern elite... He might even have won those elections if Gbagbo was wise enough to retire.

To me, the full support of the "international community" to Ouattara and the pressure they put is really suspicious... They didn't threaten the rebels when they attacked Gbagbo gouvernment in 2002, took half the country, and killed thousand of people by the way...

The same "international community" pushed as much as it could Gbagbo to make those elections with half of the country occupied by armed rebels... Should we be surprised by the outcome???


Phil, during the 1991 student uprising at the University of Yaounde, the head of the Beti "autodefense" militia was a Bamileke guy called Ngoufac. That Gbagbo's number is/was from the north does not erase the fact that he repackaged Bedie's exclusionist "ivoirite" policy and literally transformed it into an "Apartheid" policy that target the North. The roots of the 2002 coup and subsequent rebellion can be traced to this act which showed that the president had turned his back on his Socialist international pan-africanist credentials. But none of those calling this guy a "nationalist" will tell you this....

ngonso m.jane

Le président ivoirien, Laurent Gbagbo a eu un week-end médiatique très chargé. Il a accordé successivement des interviews à deux quotidiens français, le Monde et Figaro. Nous publions ci-dessous les deux interviews.

Le Monde: La Cédéao, l'organisation économique des pays d'Afrique de l'Ouest, menace de recourir à la "violence légitime", en d'autres termes d'intervenir militairement en Côte d'Ivoire. Prenez-vous ces menaces au sérieux ?

Laurent Gbagbo : Les menaces, il faut les prendre au sérieux mais après, il faut garder la tête froide et se rendre compte que ce serait bien la première fois que des pays africains partiraient en guerre contre un autre pays parce qu'une élection s'est mal passée. Regardez la carte de l'Afrique, regardez la carte des élections qui se passent plus ou moins bien, plus ou moins mal, et puis la carte de là où il n'y a pas d'élections du tout. Si on devait aller en guerre avec cette carte-là, je crois que l'Afrique serait perpétuellement en guerre. Donc je prends cela au sérieux parce que ce sont des menaces, mais je reste tranquille, j'attends de voir.

Vous croyez à la possibilité d'une intervention militaire ?

- Les choses peuvent déraper à tout moment, donc il faut prendre tout au sérieux, mais ils ont décidé de m'envoyer une délégation [de chefs d'Etat mardi]. On aurait dû commencer par là. On aurait économisé beaucoup de choses, beaucoup de salive, beaucoup d'adrénaline. Il faut venir voir ce qui se passe en Côte d'Ivoire, et quand on a vu ce qui se passe, alors on prend les décisions.

Y a-t-il des conditions qui vous permettraient de négocier avec M. Ouattara ?

- Je ne pose jamais de préalables quand je discute. Moi, je constate que les règles en vigueur en Côte d'Ivoire, qui n'ont jamais été dénoncées par qui que ce soit, font que je suis le président de la République, donc naturellement, quand on discutera je vais mettre ça sur la table, il faut dire que ces règles-là n'ont été dénoncées par personne.

Vous avez parlé de complot de la France et des Etats-Unis contre la Côte d'Ivoire. De quoi s'agit-il ?

- Avant les élections, j'ai fait ma part. J'ai demandé que les autres [les ex-rebelles] fassent leur part en désarmant. Toutes les pressions sont faites pour qu'on aille aux élections sans désarmement. Là, on peut parler du début du complot. Toutes les pressions, de toutes parts. Moi-même je n'avais pas de raison de douter des rebelles avec qui j'étais en accord avec l'accord de Ouagadougou, et avec lesquels je gérais la sortie de crise. Je les voyais bien, intégrés, se comportant de façon loyale, je n'avais pas de raison de douter qu'ils allaient utiliser après les armes qu'ils n'avaient pas déposées pour pervertir les élections. Ensuite, les institutions en place, reconnues par tous [en réalité, le Conseil constitutionnel], elles proclament le président élu, tout le monde dit : " non, c'est Ouattara que nous tenons pour président ".

Qui est ce "nous" ?

- Ce nous c'est d'abord la France, mais c'est surtout l'ambassadeur de France et l'ambassadeur des Etats-Unis. Nous voilà au terme du premier tour. Les résultats sont un peu contestables mais je ne les ai pas contestés. On va au deuxième tour, la CEI [Commission électorale indépendante] a trois jours pour donner des résultats, elle ne les donne pas. A minuit moins le quart, le président de la CEI, M. Bakayoko, intervient à la télévision, on lui dit que TV5 aurait donné des résultats, il fait une mise au point nette pour dire : nous n'avons donné aucun résultat. Minuit arrive. Candidat, je suis devant mon poste de télévision, parce que c'est le moment que tous les candidats guettent pour voir comment les votes se sont portés sur eux. Minuit passe. La CEI est "off". Le lendemain, l'ambassadeur de France et l'ambassadeur des Etats-Unis vont chercher Youssouf Bakayoko, président de la CEI, et l'amènent à l'hôtel du Golf, qui est le quartier général de mon adversaire. On apprend qu'il y a une télévision étrangère, sur laquelle aurait été donné le résultat qui donne Ouattara vainqueur. Le président du Conseil constitutionnel intervient pour dire que ce ne sont pas des résultats. Il décide que Gbagbo Laurent est élu président de la République. A partir de ce moment-là, Français et Américains disent : non, nous c'est Ouattara que nous reconnaissons. C'est tout ça qu'on appelle le complot.

Quel est le problème avec la France et les Etats-Unis ?

- Je ne vois pas le problème, c'est eux. En quoi nos élections sont leur problème ?

La France et les Etats-Unis sont suffisamment puissants pour entraîner l'Union africaine, les Nations unies, la Cédéao [Communauté économique des Etats d'Afrique de l'Ouest] ?

- Je me rends compte qu'ils sont suffisamment puissants pour ça.

C'est le discours que vous tiendrez mardi à la délégation de chefs d'Etat de la Cédéao ?

- Ce sont les faits que j'expose. Je dirai les faits.

Vous pensez les convaincre ?

- Je vais leur dire d'aller vérifier la matérialité de ces faits-là partout où c'est possible. Quand les gens se détachent des faits, c'est qu'ils ne veulent pas la vérité, pas la justice. Or, ces conflits sont créés par des gens qui sont étrangers à nous. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces gens-là choisissent un candidat qu'ils reconnaissent. Ce n'est pas leur rôle.

Eux ? La France et les Etats-Unis ?

- En premier lieu. Avec les positions incroyables, inexplicables et injustifiables qu'ils prennent, ces pays-là poussent à un affrontement interne. Aujourd'hui, moi je m'appuie sur les institutions ivoiriennes, sur les lois. Alors que vous avez maintenant d'autres qui s'appuient sur les puissances étrangères. Il y aura peut-être un désordre intérieur, une guerre civile en Côte d'Ivoire, parce que nous n'allons pas nous laisser piétiner notre droit et nos institutions.

Vous êtes prêt à aller jusqu'où?

- Il n'y a pas à être prêt à aller quelque part, c'est nous qui sommes agressés. C'est nous qui avons le droit pour nous. Jusqu'où ceux qui nous agressent sont prêts à aller ? Je vais vous signaler quelque chose. Je suis élu président en 2000. En 2002, je suis attaqué, agressé. On n'a jamais vu ni la France, ni l'Union européenne, ni les Etats-Unis, ni l'ONU, ni la Cédéao, prendre des sanctions contre ceux qui ont agressé un régime conformément à la loi. On ne les a jamais vus.

Qui fallait-il sanctionner ?

- Mais ceux qui nous avaient agressés !

Et de qui s'agissait-il ?

- Ils sont connus ! Vous ne les connaissez pas ? Cette position qu'ils prennent est la continuation de l'agression que nous avons subie en 2002. De 2002 à aujourd'hui, ceux qui ont pris les armes contre un Etat souverain, un régime démocratiquement élu, ceux-là n'ont jamais été sanctionnés par personne.

Leurs noms ?

- C'est un détail. A ce moment-là, tout le monde a fait l'aveugle, tout le monde a fait le sourd, tout le monde a fait le muet, comme les singes de la parabole. Aujourd'hui, ils retrouvent tous la parole, l'usage des yeux, l'usage des oreilles, et ils crient : "haro sur Gbagbo !" Mais Gbagbo a la loi avec lui.

Les enlèvements, les tortures d'opposants, 173 morts selon l'ONU…

Quand j'ai pris le pouvoir en 2000, ils avaient sorti des charniers, il y avait des charniers à Yopougon, des assassinats. Aujourd'hui, le débat principal c'est quoi ? C'est Gbagbo et Ouattara sont candidats au deuxième tour de l'élection présidentielle. Qui est élu ? C'est ça le débat. Alors quand ce débat gêne, comme en 2000, on glisse de ce débat vers les droits de l'homme. Ah oui, il y a eu des morts, il y a eu des charniers… Je constate la similitude du comportement entre 2000 et 2010. Je vois la même chose, exactement. Parce qu'en 2000, il y en a qui ont contesté mon élection, qui ont essayé de faire endosser [cette position] par l'Afrique. Le Nigeria d'Obasanjo et l'Afrique du Sud avaient même demandé l'annulation des élections. Je leur ai envoyé des gens pour dire que c'était irréaliste. Donc après ça, on est passé à "oui, il y a des charniers, il y a des gens qui sont morts et tout"… Moi dès demain lundi je vais demander au ministre de la justice de mettre tous les procureurs [à l'œuvre] pour faire des enquêtes. [Il s'empare d'un dossier jaune] Nous avons ici des enquêtes sanitaires du ministère de la santé sur les gens qui sont blessés, qui sont morts. Il n'y en a pas plus que ça... Il y a beaucoup de blessés, des blessés par armes blanches. Des forces de l'ordre qui sont blessées par balles, armes blanches. Nous avons nos documents, on n'a pas peur de ce débat. Alassane Ouattara a lancé l'idée de faire venir une délégation de la CPI... - Au moment des discussions de Marcoussis, en janvier 2003, je connais un chef d'Etat voisin qui a été élu à 80 %... – j'aurais peut-être dû m'arranger pour gagner avec 80 %, j'aurais été moins suspect – qui avait dit "Oui, Gbagbo doit aller à la CPI". Lui ! Et c'était tout à fait succulent. Donc ce sont les mêmes glissements. 2000, 2010, c'est le même scénario. Donc on n'est plus surpris. Les Ivoriens ont voté le 28 novembre, ils ont élu qui ? Et les institutions ont proclamé qui ? C'est ça qui est le fond de la question. Il ne faut pas glisser dessus pour aller sur des problèmes qu'on sait déjà Il y a un complot, donc ? Qui vise à installer Ouattara au pouvoir. Et il y a des puissances extérieures à l'Afrique dont, je ne sais pas pourquoi, le rêve est de mettre Ouattara au pouvoir.

Et les pays africains qui soutiennent la décision de l'ONU ? Ils sont manipulés ?

- Je ne veux pas parler de ça. Sinon, ou bien on est trop méchant, ou on ne dit rien. Sachez seulement que nous faisons les réunions de l'Union africaine et de la Cédéao, les représentants des pays européens sont toujours plus nombreux dans les couloirs que ceux des pays africains. Ils sont toujours dans les couloirs, très nombreux, pour vous donner un exemple, au sommet de Charm el-Cheikh, il y avait à l'ordre du jour le problème du Zimbabwe, il y avait tellement d'Européens dans les couloirs qu'un chef d'Etat africain a pris la parole pour dire : "Ecoutez, les Européens font une pression tellement grotesque que nous décidons de soutenir Mugabe, même si on ne l'aime pas." Et c'est cette position qui a été passée. Il y a des fois où ça suscite un ras-le-bol. Les pressions sont énormes. Sur tous les chefs d'Etat que moi j'ai eus au téléphone, les Africains, ils disent la même chose : on n'en peut plus ! Il y en a même un qui m'a dit qu'il reçoit trois coups de téléphone par jour au moins de l'Elysée.

Vous vous sentez dans une situation comparable à celle de Robert Mugabe ?

- On ne se connaît pas bien, je l'ai aperçu comme ça quelques fois, mais quand on subit ce que j'ai subi, on se dit que l'autre n'avait pas totalement tort. Ici vous pouvez chercher on n'a rien à cacher à personne… Ni au niveau de l'argent, ni au niveau de la gouvernance, ni au niveau des droits de l'homme, alors quand vous voyez les gens s'acharner sur nous, tous les gens qui viennent pour discuter affaires, je ne leur ai jamais demandé un franc, donc vraiment je suis très à l'aise. Quand vous voyez ces gens s'acharner, vous vous dites, peut-être que celui-ci [Mugabe], il n'avait pas tort.

La présence de l'hôtel du Golf, c'est durable ?

- Je ne sais même pas pourquoi ils sont là-bas.

Pour l'instant, ils ne peuvent ni sortir ni entrer…

- Non ! Celui qui veut aller chez lui peut aller chez lui. Il y a des barrages qui interdisent d'en sortir… - Les barrages ont été mis à partir du moment où les gens ont été dedans. Quand ils ont utilisé des armes. Or, de l'hôtel du Golf, on est peut-être à cinq ou dix minutes de pirogue de la résidence du chef de l'Etat, c'est tout près. Nous sommes obligés de prendre des mesures de sécurité aussi bien pour eux que pour nous. Je ne sais pas pourquoi ils sont allés s'agglutiner dans un coin du territoire

An Observer

As the political infighting intensifies in Abidjan,Ouattara is on an international campaign to dismiss all the ambassadors loyal to Gbagbo.A list of the dismissed Ambassadors including the one in Cameroon were published in a communique presented to the foreign media.Gbagbo responded by stating that any of the concerned countries that offers credentials to Ouattara's diplomats will suffer the same fate in Ivory Coast.Meaning if Cameroon for example accepts Ouattara's ambassador in Yaounde,Gbagbo will also expel the Cameroonian ambassador in Abidjan.Hahahahahaha...the saga continues.It is now a mouse and cat game


The options that are now available for Gbagbo are unfotunately very limited: if the confusion persist,he will surely be pursued by the international war crime tribunal at the Hage just like his neighbouring brother Charles Taylor,or will go on exile in a remote corner of Arica just like Jean-Bertrand Aristide or be eliminated physically like Jonas Savimbi.Time is running out and he has a choice to make and that time is now..not later




Mbanga Njoh, it's people like you that make me sick to my stomach. I don't buy your cyber stuff. It's not often that we read write-ups from Dr. Fomunyoh, and his write-ups are high quality and packed with facts. You know very well that he is not one of those that go online to campaign and do fund raising. Your criticism can be based on;
1) Fear that who ever you're supporting come 2011 is no watch to Dr. Fomunyoh, if he decides to run.
2) Baseless Hate

If not, then I'm sure you criticize even yourself or your mom for bringing you to this world. There is no doubt that Dr. Fomunyoh is a good man and that his write-up added the needed quality to the CI debate. He noticed that Cameroonians are very involved in what is happening in CI and thought it wise to add quality to their debate and guess your response to it? Good thing most Cameroonians know better and appreciate a good thing. I can rightly say most people who read Dr. Fomunyoh write-up can only give him thumbs up and also hope he fold his sleeves and help us knock out Biya & his cronies. Dr. Fomunyoh has mastered both sides of the coin, if you know what I mean. There is no doubt that his presence in Cameroonian politics will generate so much interest even from those Cameroonians that have not engaged in Cameroon politics for decades .


“The two men at the centre of the dispute have both indicated their preparedness to see a recount or further verification of the results by neutral observers. Is there any hidden motive in refusing to take up the challenge being offered by the two parties?
“It is also important that we do not rush into any form of forceful intervention. That will not guarantee a definite resolution of the crisis and may further exacerbate an already volatile situation that could erupt into a full-scale civil war with horrific consequences.
“Attempts to marshal support for a military intervention lack any justification and rather will expose the UN, ECOWAS and AU as being hypocritical.
“More outrageous election results have taken place without intervention. How can we justify an intervention in this instance, when the results are so close and divided along ethnic lines? Let us investigate all the peaceful options available rather than a military intervention that cannot establish a peaceful political transition in Cote d’Ivoire. - Rawlings

I hate to be on the fence but I still find myself unable to get plausible answers to the above quotes from President Rawlings. If indeed his assertion is a reflection of what Gbagbo and Ouattara are willing to do to resolve the problem, there is rarely any good enough excuse justifying the stance of the international community in pushing just one end of the story. You achieve peace by seeking compromise and not by sticking to one end of an argument to a potentially dangerous conclusion in an almost evenly divided electorate. Remember, this would not have happened if it was not a close election.
Dr. Fomunyoh gave quite an inside to this crisis like no other person had done before (probably the reason I am not all out for Gbagbo right now) and he was on PBS yesterday with more, but the more the above questions linger on with no plausible answers from the UN and the rest of the international community, the more some of us will see a latent motive on the part of the UN, AU, ECOWAS and all the major players. Is anyone weary of China’s increasing dominance in the sub region? Is Ouattara more likely to represent western interest against that increasing dominance? Is CI going to be another hotspot to hatch out those differences like it happened in Angola for decades? These are legitimate questions – conspiracy theories nonetheless. In the absence of clear answers however, like every African, I am weary. I am unapologetically anti-incumbent in most African elections. CI is one rare case where I pause because my guts to do align with my heart.
God bless CI.

Dr A A Agbormbai

The truth is: Africa is on a turning point, with the situation in Ivory Coast.

We don't want so-called 'strong man' Presidents who sit at the top of their country and hide behind sovereignty to manipulate every institutional instrument in their country, just to keep themselves in power forever.

These people do not care about anybody, only themselves and their power. They don't give a damn about their nation's citizens... what happens to them.

They are not nationalists (a nationalist is neither a divider nor a tribalist), but you'll see them invoke nationalism when they've lost the people's vote. They know the soft spots of the people, and you can see how easily so many of you fell for Gbagbo's tricks.

One of their other ploys is to evoke fake conspiracy theories, with well designed propaganda to gain the minds of the masses.

Don't allow yourself to be caught in the spell of these people.

With these people, a nation's institutions become meaningless, unreliable, and worthless. This is because the institutions do not control the President. Instead, the President controls the institutions.

Look at all the countries where institutions are strong. These institutions control the President not vice versa. As such the institutions are fair - they are not biased towards or against anybody.

Those defending the importance of complying with institutions in these autocratic countries are no more than telling us that whatever an incumbent President and his cronies set up is fine!

Whatever manipulation they build into the system is fine! Whatever fraudulent elections they conduct is fine! Appointing a crony as the head of the Constitutional Council or Supreme Court is fine! You really have to have demons in your own system to believe that all these actions are fine.

Well, unfortunately such acts violate the rules of fair elections and power transfer. And when this happens it is right for the whole world of democratic nations to stand up and be counted, as they've done so remarkably well in Ivory Coast.

Many of you have been surprised how well and how quickly the international community have come together to do this. Some of you have even suggested that it is suspicious. Well, you can now forget about such thoughts...

I asked them to unify with the election winner to oust the incumbent, as a break from the two disastrous precedents in Kenya and Zimbabwe. I told them that a lesson had to be taught to the incumbent Gbagbo (whom I have absolutely nothing against) as well as to all future incumbents who think they can mess with their people's aspirations and get away with it.

It's a new dawn for Africa. And to those of you who are at odds with it... too bad!

Never again will an African politician win a satisfactory election and be refused his right to take over. The same thing that is happening in Ivory Coast will happen to the incumbent of that country.

As for Gbagbo, it's only a matter of time before he leaves... dead or alive. These strong men are bad people with Satan in their system. So, Africa won't cry if it loses them.

From now on, its the people first and the Presidents second! No more strong men! That's the new law for Africa.

And of course, to those strong arm Presidents who think they can get away with it simply be stage-managing the elections to always make themselves winners, you can be sure that we are coming after you!

If you don't sort out your act and put together an electoral system that is fair to all parties, then you must call in the UN to do it for you. Failure to do so will mean our having to force you out (dead or alive). And remember... YOU HAVE LITTLE TIME!

To those who think that the West is behind this, just remember that the international community includes China and Russia. They are supporting not ouattara but the decision of the people of Ivory Coast. Besides, I asked them all to rally behind the election winner. The same will be done for any other African country.

Dr A A Agbormbai

I can see that some of you are still struggling with the notions of justice and law. The fact is... justice supersedes law and thus takes precedence over it.

Justice is about fairness... it's about righteousness (or being right).

Law is susceptible to the idiosyncracies of particular nations, whereas justice is universal.

So if a wayward nation formulates unjust laws to suit the needs of its strong arm President and his cronies, these laws become invalid in the face of Almighty justice.

I'm of the opinion that anyone, at any time, and in any place or court, has the right to reformulate a country's law (regardless of how high-level it applies) provided this person can demonstrate unquestionably that his new formulation is JUST whereas the current formulation is UNJUST.

To demonstrate justice the person only has to show beyond all doubts that his position is fair, and hence is right.

Fotso Divine

To understand the UN's role in CI's elections, let us read the UN certification of election results process as pertaining to the municipal elections in Kosovo.


The document is entitled as REGULATION NO. 2002/11 ON THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN KOSOVO. What is more interesting in this document is its section 4, which I have quoted completely below:

'Section 4
Certification of the Process of Establishment of the Voters’ List and the Election Results
4.1 The Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall have the authority to certify that the voters’ list has been established in accordance with applicable
regulations and administrative directions upon the recommendation of the Central
Election Commission.

4.2 The Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall have authority to
certify the election results as valid and final based upon the recommendation of the
Central Election Commission. The Central Election Commission shall submit to the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General results of the elections in respect of
each municipality, together with a recommendation as to whether such results should be
certified as valid and final, after all polling and counting centre results have been
completed and complaints concerning the electoral process have been adjudicated by
the Election Complaints and Appeals Sub-Commission. The certification
recommendation shall be based on whether the electoral process complied with
international standards for free and fair elections.
4.3 Prior to certification of the election results, the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General may order a recount of ballots in any polling station or counting
centre and may order to repeat elections in any polling station or for any municipality.
4.4 The Central Election Commission shall publish the final election results after
their certification by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.' The document can be obtained at: http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/02english/E2002regs/RE2002_11.pdf

Hope this may help us understand the situation in CI. Unlike CI, we have to consider that Kosovo did not have pre-existing national institutions.

Tanto Sammy

Dear Dr Fomunyoh,

One thing is clear, who ever certifies election results and by what ever method, if the result does not reflect the wish of the majority of the population there will always trouble.

The west has shown the world that its (west) interest comes first and then the democratic wish of the people. (Gaza was a case and till date the west will keep dictators in power provided its interest is protected).

With the above lessons learnt, it is only normal for me to question any agreements done before and after the elections brokered by any foreign partners and not certified by Ivorians in a national referandum.

One thing is clear. The democratic of Africans does not begin and end with the right to vote.It is an abuse to the socalled developing countries.

This explains why every African presidential candidate has to visit foreign capitals to accept to their agenda and then come home with sweet rhetoric (heavily laden with lies and deceit) to take over the presidency and then execute the programs of his real masters. Ivory coast was not in war, if elections could be held, a referandum could also be held so that the people can accept to the conditions under which the elections are being held. Ivorians deserve more than this petit talks explaining issues that have yielded nothing good for them. At best, their taxes have gone into buying for the travel, wining and dining for useless conferences.


Felix Ewane Ntube

I see Dr.Fomunyoh's analysis as one sided.Nobody cares about the Ivorian people.Is the International community's option for Ouattara as President the choice of the IVORIANS themselves?The general atmosphere has been indicating the reverse?


Go to Google.ci & view 'Voici la lettre de Sarkozy à Youssouf Bakayoko' of December 1, 2010. What meaning do you read from this letter?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Scribbles from the Den Awards

  • 2008 Black Weblog Awards

August 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Follow Me on Social Media

  • Scribbles from the Den

    Promote Your Page Too

Dibussi's Visitor Locator

  • Locations of visitors to this page


  • Global Voices English
    I'm an Author for Global Voices
  • Global Voices en Francais
    Auteur de Global Voices

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Dibussi's Library


  • :
  • :