Some people have used Colonial Administrative decisions and culture to consider the M’muock people as Bangwa, Bamileke and/or Mundani. Both the oral and written histories of the M’muock people have gone beyond basic issues of colonial heritage, culture, language and belief, to “seek and establish an undeniable truth that M’muock people are not and cannot be Bangwa, Bamileke or Mundani, but an ethnic group on its own rights or merits”. The M’muock were an independent people even before the arrival of the colonial masters. The fact that the colonial administration grouped and ruled M’muock, Bangwa and Mundani villages as one – the Bangwa Tribal Area – does not make M’muock people Bangwa or Mundani. Their decision was simply for administrative convenience. This administrative decision was what caused the M’muock to bear the Bangwa, Bamileke and Mundani tribal identity for long.

In the administration of British Southern Cameroons, the Bangwa Tribal Area was included in the Mamfe Division of Cameroon Province. There are two major reports on the Bangwa Tribal Area. These are the Bangwa Assessment Report (1922) and the Intelligence Report on Bangwa Clan (1942). They list the chiefdoms that made up the Bangwa tribe thus:

1. Bangwa Assessment Report (1922)

Fosimongdi, Fosimo, Fossongo, Fonjumetor, Foto-Dungetet, Fotabong I, Fotabong II, Foreke-Tcha, Fontem, Tschati, Folepi.

2. Intelligence Report on Bangwa Clan (1942)

Fozimondi, Fosimawbing (Fosimombin), Fosungo, Fonjemetaw, Fotodungetet, Fotabong I, Fotabong II, Foreke Cha Cha, Fontem. Tschati and Folepi included in Bangwa Assessment Report having been placed in the Mundani area.

Right from the time of the British Colonial Administration, Fosimondi and Fosimombin were often excluded from the local political affairs of Bangwa, firstly, because of distance and secondly, because the British Colonial Administration tended to deal directly with Chief Foantem Asunganyi of Fontem in all matters concerning the Bangwa. Foantem Asunganyi’s position therefore was considerably enhanced because of the British Colonial Administration’s Policy of Indirect Rule. This still obtains in Lebialem as Fontem (the King of Fontem Kingdom) remains the most influential King. The exclusion of these M’muock Kingdoms from the political affairs of Bangwa finally provoked the late Royal Highness Fozao Nzota I as well as his counterpart of Fosimombin, the late Royal Highness Fozeh, and some M’muock elite in 1980s, to reject the Bangwa identity. As stated by Vincent Lockhart,

“Recently, M’muock Fosimombin and M’muock Fosimondi insist on being referred to as the M’muock Fondoms. This signal is the result not only of their sense of being more closely associated with the Bamileke but also of their resentment at being excluded for so long from the political affairs of Bangwa that they no longer wish to be included within that grouping”.

Vincent Lockhart seems to be arguing that M’muock people’s insistence on being referred to as “M’muock people” and not “Bangwa people” was out of frustration and distance.

The above views of Lockhart notwithstanding, MUNED is of the opinion that distance and frustration are only two of many reasons why the people of M’muock Fosimondi and M’muock Fosimombin refused to be considered as “Bangwa”.  It should be recalled that M’muock Fosimondi and M’muock Fosimombin have one ethnic identity (M’muock) with Fossong Eleleng and M’muock Leteh. According to Brain and Pollock,

They had their own ethnical identity, “M’muock” different from “Bangwa” before they were grouped together with them as a unit of local government (Bangwa Tribal Area of Mamfe Division) by the British colonial administration in 1921.

Even though this grouping with Bangwa people caused them to be assimilated by Bangwa, both oral and written accounts indicate that their origin and ancestry are different from those of the Bangwa people. District Officer Cadman is very explicit in his Bangwa Assessment Reportof 19th December 1922. He asserts that:

“These people (M’muock) are not Bangwa and originally came from French country. They were at one time under one Jinkan, a vassal of Bafou-Fondong”.

Cadman thus makes it clear that “M’muock people” are not “Bangwa people”. Looking keenly at his assertion, it would be noticed that the Jinkan referred to is undoubtedly Forzenkeang from whom the M’muock people are said to have directly descended. Today, Forzenkeang is a sub chief of Fondong Kana in the Bafou Fondom. Secondly, the “French country” M’muock people came from refers to the former French Cameroun. It is worth remembering that the League of Nations divided Cameroon into British Cameroons and French Cameroun and made them the Mandates of Britain and France on 20^th July 1922, the same year the District Officer H. Cadman published the “Bangwa Assessment Report”. Therefore the “French Country” referred to is undoubtedly the former French Cameroun.

Similarly, Robert Brain  unambiguously states that:

“Fozimogndi (Fosimondi) and Fozimombin (Fosimombin) are brother chiefdoms descended from a border chieftain now a sub chief of Bafou-Fondong in the east”.

Here, Brain confirms the brotherly relationship between these two chiefdoms. “Border chieftain” refers to Forzenkeang.  Forzenkeang lives in Feumme-M’muock which was the border of the former Federal State of West Cameroon and the former Federal State of East Cameroon at the time Brain published his book in 1967. That is why he simply referred to him as the “border chieftain”. Also, Brain, as well as Cadman, did not fail to evocate the status of Fozenkeang as being the sub chief or vassal of Fondong of Bafou Fondom.

To buttress the fact that the M’muock people are not Bangwa, Ian Fowler and Prof. Verkijika G. Fanso in their book  Encounter, Transformation and Identity: People of the Western Cameroon Borderlands (1891- 2000)  state that:

“Until now, it has generally been held that Nweh or Bangwa has nine (9) Kingdoms. Increasing[ly] however, Bangwa scholars are promoting the view that two (2) of the nine, namely M’muockmbie (Fosimombin) and M’muockngie (Fosimondi), belong to the M’muock group because of the close geographic, historical and linguistic ties they have with other M’muock Kingdoms in the West and South West provinces of Cameroon.” (p. 107)

The other M’muock kingdoms referred to in the above quotation are Fossong Eleleng and M’muock Leteh.

Though they have some similarities, M’muock people are quite distinct from Bangwa and Bamileke people. Therefore, calling a M’muock man “Bangwa man”, “Mundani man” or “Bamileke man” is similar to calling a Cameroonian “Nigerian” and this is tantamount to effacing his identity; a thing that should never be!

Sources:

• Vincent Lockhart, 1994. “A Social-Historical Study of Social Change Among the Bangwa of Cameroon”, University of Edinburgh. P.31
• Robert Brain and  Adam Pollock, 1971. “ Bangwa Funerary Sculpture” P.5
• Cadman, 1922. “The Bangwa Assessment Report”. P.48
• Robert Brain, 1967. “THE BANGWA OF WEST CAMEROON: A brief account of their history and culture”, University College London. P.6

Footnotes:

• Indirect rule involved the use of local chiefs to implement colonial policies. Chiefs appointed as Native Authorities were empowered to collect tax revenue within their jurisdictions for expenditure by the colonial Administrators or on their advice. The fact that this same power was also conferred to some sub-chiefs threatened to unleash new struggles for autonomy. Sub-chiefs saw the decision to give them tax discs to distribute as an act of political recognition.
• As part of the process of determining how to govern British Cameroons,  the British administration carried out a number of surveys throughout the region. One such survey was conducted in the ‘Bangwa’ area in 1921 by the district officer of Mamfe, Mr. H. Cadman, and its findings made known in “The Bangwa Assessment Report” (Cadman, 1922).