NKONDA TITUS, TAMBE TIKU AND THE YAOUNDÉ CONNECTION: IS LRC USING ITS OWN COLLABORATORS TO TARNISH THE AMBAZONIA STRUGGLE?
By Timothy Enongene
Associate Editor-in-Chief,
Independentist News
24 October 2026
The enemy does not have to defeat a people’s struggle on the battlefield if it can destroy that struggle’s reputation in the minds of the people. When atrocities are committed, blame is conveniently placed on Ambazonia fighters, public anger grows, and the independence movement suffers another blow. But what happens when people associated with networks allegedly working alongside La République du Cameroun (LRC) begin exposing one another? Could their public confrontations reveal another dimension of Yaoundé’s war against Ambazonia?
The latest audio circulating in connection with Nkonda Titus, associated with MKPD—My Kontri Pipo Dem—raises precisely these questions. The recording is being presented as evidence concerning the kidnapping of innocent Southern Cameroonians and the alleged involvement of LRC military personnel and DDR Amba operatives. Its authenticity, context and exact contents must be established, but the allegations deserve serious investigation.
For years, Titus has featured in public controversies involving accusations of collaboration with government-linked networks. Videos and statements attributed to him have been cited by critics who allege that he has exposed Southern Cameroonians to danger and spoken about killings associated with the conflict. Other names repeatedly raised in public accusations include Paddy Asanga, Clovis Naserie, Moja Moja and individuals associated with Minister Paul Atanga Nji’s security networks.
The allegations against these individuals are grave and require evidence. Yet the larger question is unavoidable: Are all the atrocities attributed to Ambazonia fighters actually committed by Ambazonia fighters, or have some crimes involving government-linked actors and their alleged collaborators been used to tarnish the independence struggle?
For Ambazonians, this is more than a dispute between personalities. It is a question of public trust, accountability and the ability of a people to distinguish the conduct of individual actors from the political aspirations of an entire nation.
NKONDA TITUS AND THE QUESTION OF YAOUNDÉ’S COLLABORATOR NETWORKS
The central issue is whether the latest recording can help establish how alleged informant networks operate, who supplies information about suspected Ambazonia supporters, who authorises or carries out kidnappings, and whether any government personnel are involved in unlawful operations.
If the recording contains admissions concerning particular crimes, the original audio should be authenticated, the statements examined in context, and the people identified given an opportunity to respond. Where the claims can be corroborated by witnesses, other recordings or documentary evidence, they should be pursued through credible independent investigations.
This matters because the public narrative surrounding the war has profound consequences. When a person is kidnapped or killed, and responsibility is immediately assigned to Ambazonia without a proper investigation, the movement’s reputation suffers regardless of the actual perpetrator. If evidence subsequently establishes that government-linked actors committed the crime, the public deserves to know.
The reverse is equally true: allegations against LRC personnel must be established through evidence rather than accepted automatically. The objective is not to replace one unverified narrative with another. It is to expose the truth, identify those responsible and prevent perpetrators from hiding behind political affiliations.
If Yaoundé has used informants or other collaborators to identify targets, facilitate unlawful arrests or killings, or manipulate public perceptions of the independence movement, the evidence must be brought into the open. Those responsible must not escape accountability because they possess government connections.
HAS YAOUNDÉ FOUND A NEW FAVOURITE IN TAMBE TIKU?
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the current controversy is the apparent tension involving Tambe Tiku. Could Yaoundé be finding Tiku more useful than Nkonda Titus? Has Tiku gained access, influence or recognition that Titus believes he is losing? And, if so, could a struggle for relevance help explain why accusations are now being exchanged publicly?
These are important questions, but they remain questions—not facts.
Tiku has faced criticism over his reported connections with Governor Okalia Bilai and his claims concerning contacts with government officials and Ambazonia fighters. His reported remarks during Prime Minister Joseph Dion Ngute’s visit to Buea also attracted attention because of the connections he appeared to claim. Critics have questioned whether such contacts could be used to obtain information about fighters or influence events surrounding the conflict.
Tiku, however, has described his communications with separatist fighters as part of efforts to negotiate releases and reduce tensions. Communication with fighters, by itself, does not establish criminal collaboration. The relevant question is whether credible evidence demonstrates that any particular contact was used to facilitate unlawful activity.
The public confrontation involving people associated with MKPD and Tiku therefore deserves scrutiny. What triggered it? What evidence supports the accusations? And do the competing statements reveal anything about the relationships between government officials, alleged informants and individuals who claim access to both sides of the conflict?
The answers matter more than the quarrel itself.
IS MONEY BEHIND THE FALLING-OUT?
There is another question that cannot simply be ignored: could competition for money, protection, influence or government recognition be contributing to the dispute?
The government of LRC has faced criticism over its spending priorities, including public attention given to personalities such as Steve Fah and Makosso. Against this background, some observers may wonder whether people who believe they have served the government’s interests are dissatisfied with the rewards or recognition they receive.
Could Titus believe that he has become less useful to Yaoundé? Could he suspect that Tiku is receiving greater attention? Could public accusations be an attempt to expose activities that were previously kept secret?
These possibilities provide legitimate lines of inquiry, but there is no verified evidence established here that Tiku receives more money from Yaoundé than Titus, or that a dispute over payments triggered the latest controversy. Such claims require financial records, credible testimony or other corroboration.
Nevertheless, the broader question remains relevant. When individuals who claim to oppose the independence struggle begin accusing one another, the public should examine whether their statements reveal competing interests within the networks surrounding the conflict.
If any person has profited from supplying information that exposes civilians or fighters to unlawful harm, that conduct deserves investigation. If government funds have been used to support unlawful operations, the public deserves accountability. But the evidence—not speculation about personal motives—must establish what happened.
WHEN COLLABORATORS FALL OUT, THE PUBLIC DESERVES THE TRUTH
Political alliances built around access to power can change. Individuals who once enjoyed official attention may find themselves sidelined, while others acquire new influence. When that happens, information that was previously concealed may surface through public accusations and counter-accusations.
The possibility that something similar is happening among people associated with the current controversy deserves investigation. If Titus and Tiku have competing relationships with officials in Yaoundé, their statements may help reveal how those relationships operate. But neither man’s accusations should be accepted uncritically, and neither should be declared guilty of a crime without evidence.
The important question is whether the information emerging from these disputes can establish the existence of networks involved in kidnapping, unlawful killings or the manipulation of public perceptions of the war.
If the evidence points to LRC military personnel, government officials or their collaborators, their roles must be investigated. If it implicates other actors, the same standard must apply. The people of Southern Cameroons have suffered too much to have the truth sacrificed to the rivalries of individuals.
The quarrel may be personal, the motives may be disputed, but the allegations concern the lives and security of an entire population.
YAOUNDÉ MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFINE THE STRUGGLE
For years, the actions of individual fighters, alleged collaborators and criminal actors have shaped public perceptions of the Ambazonia independence struggle. Whenever an atrocity is attributed to Ambazonia, the entire movement can be made to appear responsible. That is why careful investigation and accurate reporting are essential.
The struggle belongs to the people. It cannot be reduced to the conduct of every individual who claims to represent it, and it should not be discredited by allegations that have not been properly examined.
If evidence establishes that government-linked actors have committed crimes and that responsibility has been wrongly attributed to Ambazonia, exposing those facts would help correct the public record. It would also demonstrate why every serious allegation must be investigated before conclusions are drawn.
But cleaning the image of the struggle cannot mean concealing genuine abuses by anyone who claims to fight for independence. A people’s cause is strengthened by truth, discipline and accountability—not by denying evidence or protecting individuals from scrutiny.
The objective must be to separate the legitimate aspirations of Southern Cameroonians from criminal conduct, wherever it occurs, and to expose any documented attempt to exploit the war to manipulate the public narrative.
THE PEOPLE’S STRUGGLE MUST REMAIN ON COURSE
The people of Southern Cameroons have endured years of bloodshed, displacement, destroyed livelihoods and broken families. They deserve security, justice and a future in which their political aspirations are taken seriously. They also deserve honest communication from everyone claiming to speak in their name.
The Ambazonia independence aspiration should not be judged solely through the actions of alleged informants, political opportunists or individuals whose motives remain disputed. Its credibility must be assessed through its stated objectives, its relationship with the people, its treatment of civilians and its commitment to accountability.
The Ambazonia Self-Defence forces (ASA) and the broader independence movement must likewise be judged on verifiable developments, public commitments and conduct. Supporters should be encouraged to seek credible information, distinguish evidence from propaganda and remain vigilant against attempts by any actor to manipulate their understanding of the conflict.
The people should not lose faith in their political aspirations simply because controversial individuals appear in the headlines or because accusations are traded between people associated with opposing interests. Nor should faith become blind acceptance. A movement that belongs to the people must remain answerable to the people.
The question is whether the current controversy will produce verifiable evidence that helps establish the truth about kidnappings, killings and alleged government-linked networks. That is the standard by which the revelations should be judged.
OUR DESTINATION REMAINS BUEA
For supporters of the Ambazonia independence project, Buea remains the symbolic destination of their national aspiration. Controversies involving individual personalities do not, by themselves, erase that objective. But advancing it requires public trust, credible leadership, protection of civilians and the willingness to confront wrongdoing wherever it occurs.
Yaoundé must answer for abuses established against its forces or agents. Anyone who has participated in unlawful killings, kidnappings or other crimes must be held accountable. And anyone attempting to tarnish the independence struggle through fabricated accusations or the deliberate misattribution of crimes must be exposed if the evidence establishes such conduct.
The latest audio associated with Nkonda Titus, the questions surrounding Tambe Tiku and the possibility of competing interests among alleged collaborators should therefore lead to one demand: authenticate the evidence, investigate the allegations and identify those responsible.
Ambazonia is a people’s struggle, not the private property of political personalities or alleged collaborators. Its future must not be dictated by propaganda, personal rivalries or unverified accusations.
The people deserve the truth. Victims deserve justice. And the struggle must remain accountable to the people whose aspirations give it meaning.
The destination remains Buea. The responsibility is to pursue the truth, protect the people and ensure that the struggle is not defined by those who seek to discredit it
