Politics

22, September 2026

World leaders gather at UN amid wars, AI fears and global divisions ⁰

Under a global cloud of wars and bitter divisions, world leaders meet at the United Nations this week facing new fears that runaway artificial intelligence could threaten humanity even as climate shocks and escalating prices are already making life much tougher for hundreds of millions of people.

The annual high-level gathering at the U.N. General Assembly will also be consumed with major wars in Iran , Gaza , Ukraine, Sudan , Congo and Myanmar and a persisting question: Can the leaders do anything to end them?

And what can they do about the relentless rise of global warming threatening the future of the planet, the growing inequalities within and among nations, and shocks to the global economy as blocked shipping routes and supply chains increase the cost of living and slow growth?

The future of the United Nations will also definitely be on the agenda. At 81, its powers are still the victorious nations from World War II, not the 21st century’s major global players. The U.N.’s 193 member nations have agreed to a wide-ranging reform package that includes updating key institutions such as the powerful U.N. Security Council, where the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France hold inordinate sway because of their veto power. Reform, however, is easier said than implemented.

Behind the scenes, there will be speculation about who will lead the United Nations next. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ second five-year term ends Dec. 31 and no clear successor has emerged.

This meeting is still pivotal

There is still no question that the U.N. remains THE gathering place for its 193 member nations and their leaders. Some 130 heads of state and government are expected to speak at the General Assembly starting Tuesday along with dozens of ministers.

Among the headliners will be U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emanuel Macron. Both will speak Tuesday after Guterres’ opening “state of the world” address. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian speak Wednesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whom New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani wanted arrested for his treatment of Palestinians in Gaza until he learned he has no such authority — will address the assembly on Thursday. For a second year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas won’t be coming to the U.N. because the U.S. has refused to give him a visa. He will nonetheless address the assembly by video the same day.

The United States, under its agreement with the U.N. to host the organization, is required to allow diplomats from all member nations to attend meetings.

Equally telling is who else isn’t coming. China’s President Xi Jinping is meeting Trump in Washington on Wednesday, yet he is skipping — some diplomats say snubbing — the U.N. gathering and sending a vice president instead. Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t coming either, and Indian President Narendra Modi has backed out.

France’s U.N. ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, said it is “extremely critical” for world leaders this week to support the U.N. as the place where the world’s nations meet — especially at a time of such polarization.

“We believe in multilateralism,” he said, “and we believe that the high-level week is the occasion for countries in the world to reaffirm that they prefer cooperation and dialogue to confrontation.”

United Nations has not had a great year

There is no doubt it’s been a tough year for the world body. It has been pushed to the sidelines when it comes to its key responsibility of ensuring international peace and security and trying to end major conflicts in the Mideast and Ukraine. The U.S. failure to pay billions of dollars in outstanding arrears has left the organization’s finances in rocky shape.

But veteran U.N. watcher Richard Gowan, the International Crisis Group’s global issues and institutions program director, says 2025 was even worse.

A year ago, he said, people were contemplating that Trump would use his U.N. speech to announce that the United States would leave the world organization. Trump didn’t announce a pullout last September and the U.N. muddled through the past 12 months with financial troubles that forced cutbacks to its peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid.

In recent days, the U.S. paid $725 million of its dues to the U.N.’s regular operating budget for this year, enough to keep the Trump administration from losing its vote in the General Assembly. The payment was a strong indication Trump will keep the U.S. in the United Nations.

The U.N. is no longer “in freefall,” Gowan said, but it “is stuck in an open-ended or permanent crisis.” Put more graphically, he said, “The U.N. may not be in emergency care like it was last year, but it does seem to be trapped in a trauma center for the foreseeable future.”

Former U.N. deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch-Brown, a United Nations Foundation board member, said, “While the world still trusts the U.N., the global public is eager for change.”

AI is pushing toward the center of the agenda

The future of artificial intelligence has pushed to the forefront of global concerns, with its speeding advances and the dawning recognition that there are no industry controls, let alone any global guardrails for a technology that has many advantages but also many disadvantages and unknowns.

Days before the global gathering, leaders of three major AI companies warned about the technology getting out of human control and called for a pause, but Trump dismissed their concerns as “a hoax,” and urged continued advances to keep the U.S. ahead of China.

The U.N. Security Council added a high-level meeting on AI to its agenda on Wednesday afternoon, a sign of the growing apprehension and need to address the issue. It was already slated to hold a high-level meeting on Ukraine with Zelenskyy on Wednesday morning.

For the U.N. chief, this will be his last assembly meeting with global leaders. He previewed his speech last week, telling U.N. reporters that power is shifting in “an era of deep uncertainty.”

“At a time when the world faces three existential threats,” he said, “international cooperation is more necessary than ever.”

Others will be vying for the spotlight on issues from rising sea levels and funding education to the fight for gender equality. Hundreds of private meetings will also convene in U.N. cubicles, hotels, diplomatic missions and restaurants.

Esther Brimmer, a senior fellow in global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs in the Obama administration, said in-person meetings can help countries hash out ideas that get implemented months later.

She called the situation in 2026 “much more serious and complex than in decades past.”

“With that said, I’m also not without hope as well,” Brimmer said. “Over the past decades we’ve learned a lot about international cooperation.”

Source: AP

15, September 2026

The Cameroonian army must put its conscience to the test ⁰

For more than four decades and with the full backing of the military, Cameroon has been governed under the shadow of one political system and one presidency. A nation that was once presented as a project of stability has become for millions of Cameroonians a story of stagnation, impunity and the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a privileged few-that privileged few are members of the ruling CPDM crime syndicate and top military barons.

The time has come for the Cameroonian army leadership to ask themselves a question that can no longer be postponed: What kind of country do we want to leave to the next generation?

The governing establishment has long invoked the language of rigour and moralization. But what moralization means to an ordinary Cameroonian is very different from what it appears to mean within the corridors of power in Yaoundé.

When citizens struggle with unemployment, inadequate hospitals, failing infrastructure, poor public services and the rising cost of living while those in power and those close to power appear to accumulate extraordinary wealth and privilege, the government’s rhetoric begins to sound less like a moral standard and more like an insult.

A nation cannot be reduced to a marketplace for political insiders. The Unity Palace is not a family business. Public office is not private property. The resources of Cameroon belong to the Cameroonian people and not to a president, a political party, a network of associates or a privileged class deep within the Cameroonian army.

This is why the question facing Cameroon today is bigger than Paul Biya as an individual. It is about a political culture that has allowed power to become entrenched, accountability to become optional and citizens to become spectators in the governance of their own country.

For too long, too many Cameroonians have been told to wait! Wait for development! Wait for better institutions! Wait for opportunity! Wait for reform! Wait for tomorrow!

But a nation cannot build its future indefinitely on promises of tomorrow. The responsibility now belongs to the Cameroonian army. Not through violence. Not through vengeance. Not through hatred but through conscience, courage and a strong action like we witnessed in Gabon, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Algeria.

Every senior army officer must ask: What have I accepted that I should never have accepted? What injustice have I normalized because challenging it seemed inconvenient or dangerous? What kind of Commander-In-Chief am I willing to tolerate as a soldier? And what responsibility do I have for the Cameroon my children will inherit? These are not uncomfortable questions. They are necessary ones.

A functioning nation requires more than elections. It requires citizens who refuse to surrender their political agency. It requires institutions capable of scrutinizing those in power. It requires independent courts, a free press, transparent public finances and genuine consequences for corruption and abuse of office. Most importantly, it requires a security service including the army that understands that political power ultimately derives its legitimacy from the people. Cameroonian army soldiers should therefore put their consciences to the test.

Innocent Cameroonian citizens have died demanding transparency. Hundreds have been killed for demanding accountability. Thousands are in jail for demanding credible institutions. And thousands are living in exile for demanding an end to impunity. The Cameroonian army has been helping in stifling any political competition geared towards putting an end to the idea that Biya and his ruling CPDM party do not own the state of Cameroon. The military is now the only constituency in Cameroon that can bring about change.

The objective of the Cameroonian army should not be to replace one group of beneficiaries with another. Cameroon does not need a new generation of political predators wearing different colors. It needs a new political ethic—one in which public service actually means service to the public.

Cameroon has enormous human potential. Its young people have ideas, ambition and energy. Its entrepreneurs create businesses despite enormous obstacles. Its teachers, doctors, engineers, farmers, workers and professionals keep the country functioning despite circumstances that would break the spirit of many societies.

Cameroon does not lack capable people. It lacks a political system willing to put the interests of its people first. That can change if the military leaders sit back, think and rethink things. Change will not come from Biya and his gang. It will not come from worshipping cabinet ministers in Yaoundé. And it will not come from pretending that the status quo is sustainable simply because it has lasted for so long.

The age of political fatalism must end. The leadership of the National Police Force, the National Gendarmerie and army must now commit to the idea that government exists to serve citizens—not the other way around. The military in every nation on earth is a constituency and so as a constituency the Cameroonian army too must reclaim their right to ask difficult questions, scrutinize those who govern them and participate in getting better commander-in-chief.

The fundamental choice before all the security apparatus of the state of Cameroon is therefore not simply between one politician and another. It is between impunity and accountability. Between stagnation and renewal. Between political entitlement and public service. Between accepting the status quo and exercising the will of the Cameroonian people.

The Cameroonian military leadership should remember that history will eventually judge every generation of the men and women in uniform by what they did when they had the opportunity to change their country’s direction. General Charles De Gaulle changed France. General Franco built Spain. Cameroon is at such a moment.

Let every Cameroonian army soldier put their conscience to the test. Let them decide what kind of nation they want. And let them use every strategic means available to bring about the political renewal Cameroon desperately needs.

The country belongs to its people. It is time for its politics to reflect that truth.

To this I put my name

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

6, September 2026

Who really pushed for the return of the Vice President of the Republic? ⁰

There is a question that the authorities in Yaoundé have so far avoided answering plainly: who really pushed for the return of the Vice President of the Republic?

On paper, the answer appears straightforward. President Paul Biya initiated the constitutional amendment that brought back the office abolished in 1972. Parliament subsequently approved it in April 2026, giving the Vice President a potentially decisive constitutional role as the successor to the Head of State in the event of death, resignation or permanent incapacity.

But politics is rarely as simple as the official paperwork suggests. If this was genuinely President Biya’s personal political project, then Cameroonians deserve to know why the idea became urgent now. Why, after decades without a vice-presidency, did the regime suddenly decide that the country’s constitutional architecture was incomplete? And why has the office remained vacant? That question has become even more difficult to ignore.

At the end of December 2025, President Biya promised that a new government would be formed “in the coming days.” Months later, Cameroon still has no new post-election government. Yet, in the midst of this institutional uncertainty, the authorities found the political energy and parliamentary machinery to amend the Constitution and create a new office whose principal significance is succession.

That juxtaposition deserves scrutiny. If it was Biya’s idea, where is Biya’s Vice President?

The President has the constitutional power to appoint the Vice President. The office was therefore not created as an independent institution beyond his control. It was created as an institution whose occupant depends entirely on the President’s choice. Yet months after its restoration, there is still no Vice President.

This creates a remarkable political paradox. The regime told the country that the new office was necessary for institutional continuity. But when the President subsequently spent more than two months abroad, the country still had no Vice President. Biya returned to Yaoundé on August 20 after more than ten weeks away, while the position remained vacant. If the Vice Presidency was principally about guaranteeing continuity, the prolonged vacancy raises a very obvious question: Continuity for whom, and for what purpose? Was the Vice Presidency really about succession? The timing is impossible to ignore.

Cameroon entered 2026 after one of the most contested presidential elections in its recent history. Issa Tchiroma Bakary challenged the official outcome and claimed victory, while the government maintained that Biya had won another term.

Biya, at 93, is the world’s oldest serving head of state. Against that backdrop, restoring an office that automatically places its holder at the centre of presidential succession cannot reasonably be treated as an ordinary administrative reform.

It is a succession reform. And succession is ultimately about power. This is precisely why the public deserves more than the official explanation that the Vice President will guarantee stability. Stability is the stated reason. Who benefits from the new constitutional arrangement is the more important question.

So who was behind the idea? There are multiple possibilities, but they should not be confused with established facts in Yaoundé. Maybe the idea originated with President Biya himself and reflects his assessment that the constitutional succession mechanism needed strengthening. It could be also that senior officials around the presidency persuaded Biya that the old system was too risky. Likely influential figures within the ruling CPDM establishment saw an opportunity to shape the succession before the inevitable transition at the top. Perhaps the proposal emerged from competing interests around the Biya family and the wider power network that has grown around the Unity Palace. Or imaginably several of these forces converged on the same conclusion.

At present, publicly available evidence establishes who formally submitted the proposal, but it does not establish who first conceived it, who lobbied for it inside the presidency or who influenced the precise constitutional design. And that is exactly where serious journalism should begin. The unanswered question of the presidency! The most revealing development may therefore not be the creation of the Vice Presidency itself, but what happens next.

Who will be appointed? Why that person? When will the appointment be made? What political constituency will the appointee represent? And, most importantly, who will have persuaded President Biya that this particular person should stand next to him at the top of the succession ladder?

These questions matter because the Vice President under the new arrangement is not merely another government official. The office potentially determines who inherits the presidency when the current occupant can no longer continue. That makes the identity of the future Vice President a matter of national interest.

A nation deserves to know who is designing its succession

For more than four decades, Cameroon has operated around the extraordinary political longevity of one man. The question of what comes after Paul Biya has consequently been one of the country’s most sensitive political questions. The reintroduction of the Vice Presidency has now brought that question into the Constitution itself. But instead of clarifying the succession debate, the reform has arguably made it more intriguing.

If the office was urgently required to protect institutional continuity, why has it not yet been filled? If it was designed with succession in mind, why has the President not identified the person who will eventually stand first in line?

And if President Biya was indeed the sole driving force behind the reform, why has nobody publicly explained what changed his mind after decades without a Vice President?

Cameroon should not have to rely on rumours, Unity Palace whispers and social-media speculation to understand a constitutional change of this magnitude. The CPDM Central Committee should tell the country: Who proposed the Vice Presidency? Who pushed for it? Who advised the President? Who drafted the political strategy behind it? And whose interests does the new succession architecture ultimately serve? Until these questions are answered, the official explanation of “continuity” will remain incomplete. Because in Yaoundé, as in every political capital, the most important question is sometimes not who signed the document, but who persuaded the person holding the pen.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

1, September 2026

Momo Division: CPDM Crime Syndicate seeks to hold all 8 elected positions in 2027 ⁰

Cameroon’s ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) is mobilizing to defend its hold on Momo division in the Northwest region, where it aims to retain all three parliamentary seats and five municipalities it won in the 2020 elections.

Party officials, mayors and local leaders set the objective during a seminar on August 22, 2026, as the CPDM steps up preparations for legislative and municipal elections expected in 2027.

The meeting was chaired by Mbah Acha Rose Fomundam, Minister Delegate at the Presidency in charge of the Supreme State Audit and head of the CPDM Central Committee’s permanent divisional delegation for Momo. It followed a regional party seminar held a day earlier in the Northwest with the same stated goal of securing an “overwhelming victory” in the next elections.

In the immediate term, the party is focusing on registering members and supporters on electoral rolls before the annual registration period closes on August 31, 2026. Section officials and mayors were instructed to intensify mobilization ahead of the deadline.

“Massive registration and massive voting will bring us victory on election day,” Mbah Acha Rose said. She urged local party structures to repeat their 2020 performance, when the CPDM won all parliamentary and municipal mandates in Momo.

The division has three members of parliament across two constituencies. Momo East is represented by Injoh Fo’o Ngang Prudencia and Anyeret Charles, while Awutah Philip Atubah represents Momo West. At the municipal level, the CPDM controls all five councils in the division: Batibo, Mbengwi, Njikwa, Widikum-Boffe and Andek, also known as Ngie.

Following the seminar, party officials were instructed to relay the directives to their respective local sections. The mobilization comes after the terms of members of parliament and municipal councilors were extended in 2026. The exact dates of the next elections will, however, depend on the decrees formally convening the electorate.

Source: Sbbc

25, August 2026

Biya has had his era; Cameroon must now be allowed to enter its next one ⁰

Cameroon has reached a moment when political loyalty must give way to a more fundamental question: how much longer can the country be governed under a system that appears increasingly unable to meet the demands of the present?

President Paul Biya has served Cameroon for more than four decades. His longevity in office is extraordinary, but longevity should never become an argument for indefinite political stagnation. A country of young people, ambitious citizens and enormous potential cannot remain trapped in a political era that seems increasingly disconnected from the realities of a new generation.

Recent public appearances by the president have raised serious questions about his ability to carry the enormous physical and political burden of the presidency. Images of him requiring assistance at public events, reports and footage that appear to show him struggling during international engagements and the increasingly limited public presentation of his day-to-day activities have intensified concerns about the future of Cameroon’s leadership.

These observations should not be turned into cruelty or ridicule. Age and physical frailty are human realities and Biya deserves dignity. But respecting the dignity of an elderly head of state does not mean refusing to ask legitimate questions about the capacity of the presidency and the future of the nation.

Cameroon is not a Biya family possession, nor should the presidency become an institution organized around one individual indefinitely. The country belongs to its citizens, including the millions of young Cameroonians who have never known another president.

The current difficulty in forming or reshaping a government only adds to the sense of political inertia. At a time when Cameroon needs decisive action on unemployment, insecurity, corruption, infrastructure, education, healthcare and economic opportunity, the country cannot afford prolonged uncertainty at the very top. There comes a time when leadership means knowing when to make way.

President Biya should therefore consider a dignified transition of power and hand the responsibility of governing Cameroon to a new generation. Such a transition would not erase his place in the country’s history. On the contrary, voluntarily creating space for renewal could become one of the most consequential decisions of his political career.

Cameroon needs fresh ideas, new energy and leaders who understand the aspirations of a generation shaped by a very different world from the one in which Mr. Biya began his political journey.

This is not a call for humiliation. It is not a call for chaos. And it is certainly not a call to deny the president his dignity. It is a call for renewal.

Enough of a political system in which the future of an entire nation appears tied to the health, age and continued presence of one man. Enough of waiting for change to happen by accident. Cameroon deserves a deliberate, constitutional and peaceful generational transition. President Biya has had his era. Cameroon must now be allowed to enter its next one.

The time has come to hand over the baton.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

23, August 2026

Biya’s hand: a source of glory and shame ⁰

President Paul Biya’s return to Cameroon after more than two months abroad should have been a moment of reassurance. Instead, it has once again placed the question of presidential visibility at the centre of public debate.

At Yaoundé-Nsimalen International Airport, Cameroonians were not given the familiar image of a president stepping out before the cameras, greeting the nation and demonstrating that he was firmly in command. Television images instead showed the presidential convoy leaving the airport, while a hand was briefly seen waving from inside the vehicle believed to be carrying the 93-year-old president.

That Biya’s hand has become more than a hand. It has become a symbol. For Biya’s supporters, the gesture can be read as a sign of resilience: the hand of a president who, despite his age and long absences, has returned to the country and continues to exercise the authority of the state. His subsequent reception of the Cameroon female national football team at the State House reinforced the message that he remains present and engaged in the affairs of the nation.

But for many Cameroonians, the same hand evokes an uncomfortable question: why must the country repeatedly search for evidence of its president’s presence?

A presidential hand waving through a car window may appear harmless, even reassuring. Yet when such a gesture becomes the clearest public image of a head of state, it also exposes the deeper problem of presidential communication. A country of nearly 30 million people deserves more than glimpses and speculation. It deserves clarity.

The hand is therefore both a source of glory and shame.

It is a source of glory because it represents survival, endurance and the remarkable longevity of a political career. Few leaders anywhere have occupied the presidency for as long as Biya has. To his admirers, his continued presence is evidence of political strength and stability.

But it is also a source of shame because it symbolises the extraordinary distance that has developed between the presidency and the people. When citizens must scrutinise television footage to determine whether their president is physically present and well, something has gone fundamentally wrong with the relationship between public office and public accountability.

The issue is not whether President Biya waved his hand. The issue is why that hand has been left to carry such an enormous political burden.

A modern presidency cannot be reduced to rumours, convoys, carefully controlled images and fleeting gestures. Leadership requires visibility, communication and confidence-building. Citizens should not have to interpret a movement of the hand as a political message.

Biya’s return should therefore be an opportunity for more than ceremony. It should be an opportunity to restore transparency around the presidency and to demonstrate, unmistakably, that the head of state is capable of communicating directly with the nation.

The hand that waved from inside that vehicle may have been intended as a simple greeting. Yet it has become a mirror reflecting Cameroon itself: proud of its endurance, but uneasy about its leadership; respectful of the office, but hungry for openness.

For nearly four decades, Paul Biya’s presidency has shaped modern Cameroon. His latest return should not merely answer the question of whether he is back. It should provoke a larger question: what kind of presidency does Cameroon want to see going forward? The answer cannot be found in a waving hand alone.

That hand may still command glory. But after so many years, it also carries the weight of shame.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

20, August 2026

So, Cameroonians, what exactly do you want from President Biya? ⁰

For more than three decades, one political chorus has echoed across Cameroon with the consistency of a national anthem: “Biya must go! Biya must go!”

From the 1990s through protests, elections, political debates and social-media battles, the message seemed perfectly clear. After more than four decades in power, Cameroonians who wanted political change appeared to have settled on one simple solution: Paul Biya must leave.

Fair enough. But now comes the plot twist worthy of a Cameroonian comedy. Biya has been gone from public view for about two months, and suddenly another chorus is rising: “Where is Biya? We have not seen our president!”

Excuse me? So, Cameroonians, please help the rest of the world understand. When he was there, you said, “Biya must go!” Now that he is not there, you are saying, “Biya must appear!”

This is beginning to sound less like a political demand and more like a complicated romantic relationship.

“Leave me alone!”

“Okay.”

“Why did you leave me alone?”

At this point, even President Biya might be wondering whether he is supposed to govern the country or simply maintain a daily attendance register. Perhaps Cameroonians should clarify the job description. Is the head of state required to be physically visible, or merely constitutionally present?

Must he appear on television every morning, perhaps waving from the Unity Palace just to reassure the nation?

“Good morning, Cameroonians. I am still here. The electricity is still expensive. The roads are still under construction. Emergence 2030 will begin soon!! Have a nice day.” Maybe that would solve the problem because the current situation is becoming wonderfully paradoxical.

For years, people complained that Biya was everywhere politically but nowhere physically. Now, when he disappears from public view, some of the same voices become anxious about his absence.

This raises the obvious question: What exactly do Cameroonians want from President Biya?

Do you want him to go? Or do you want him to stay? Do you want him visible? Or do you want him invisible? Do you want him to govern? Or do you simply want proof that he is alive?

And perhaps the most important question of all: If Biya finally leaves, what exactly are Cameroonians expecting to happen next? Because removing one man is not the same thing as repairing a country.

A political system is bigger than the person sitting at the top. Institutions matter. Elections matter. Parliament matters. Courts matter. Civil society matters. The economy matters. And, most importantly, citizens matter.

So perhaps this is the perfect moment for Cameroon to move beyond the wonderfully convenient political slogan of “Biya must go” and start answering the much harder question: “Biya goes—and then what?”

Because shouting “go!” for 36 years is easy. But designing the Cameroon that should come after him is considerably harder.

And if Cameroonians really want Biya gone, they should probably stop treating his disappearance like a missing-person mystery. After all, you cannot spend decades shouting “Biya must go!” and then, when he actually goes quiet, you start shouting “Biya, where are you?”

At some point, even the president deserves to ask: “My people, make wuna decide. You want me to go, or you want me to report for duty?”

Cameroonians, the microphone is yours. What exactly do you want from President Biya?

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

18, August 2026

Zambia’s Hichilema wins re-election with 60% of vote ⁰

Zambia’s President Hakainde Hichilema won re-election with 60 percent of votes cast last week, the electoral commission announced Tuesday, after a race critics said was tightly managed by his government.

Thursday’s election in the copper-rich nation was largely peaceful but the run-up was tainted by opposition claims of intimidation, arrests, violence and irregularities.

The result was widely expected, with Hichilema — in power since 2021 — facing a crowded field of 13 challengers led by a former provincial minister, Brian Mundubile, making his first bid for the presidency.

Mundubile, 55, secured nearly 38 percent of the vote, Electoral Commission of Zambia chairperson Mwangala Zaloumis said.

Five of the 226 constituencies had not been tallied, she said. However, “The outstanding results are not likely to materially influence the overall result of that election.”

In a statement after his victory was announced, 64-year-old Hichilema said: “We are truly humbled by the trust you have placed in our hands.”

He added: “To those citizens who preferred the ideas presented by our opponents, we hear you, and we will continue to work for you.”

Hundreds of his supporters wearing the red colours of his UPND party poured onto the streets of the capital Lusaka, singing and dancing in celebration and lighting firecrackers.

‘Militia activity’

On Monday, Mundubile alleged there had been irregularities in the counting, claiming — without providing evidence — that documents listing the results had been tampered with, which he said risked the “integrity” of the tally.

“There are also allegations that officials in Southern Province were pressured to modify figures, with some of the alleged communication said to have been made through local government structures,” he said in a video message posted on social media.

Hours earlier, his NRPUP party angrily rejected government claims that its members were involved in militia or insurgent activity.

This followed the government’s announcement late Sunday that police had arrested 11 people, including six opposition figures, in a raid against “militia activity”.

They were “in possession of high-grade military weapons, ammunition and other materials for use in armed insurrection,” it said.

The NRPUP said shots were fired in the raid, which took place at Mundubile’s home, and a parliamentarian was hit.

It “rejects with absolute disdain the spurious and entirely false claims made by the Zambian Government that the NRPUP, its leadership or its members have been involved in insurgency, militia activity or any related conduct whatsoever,” it said.

Suspension, ‘stolen ballots’

The electoral commission was criticised for suspending vote counting for around six hours on Friday following reports of violence against polling staff and the alleged theft of ballot papers.

The count resumed after it announced the “security threat” had been contained.

International observer missions, including the European Union, said the pause risked the credibility of the process as well as voter confidence.

They also warned at the weekend that restrictions on the opposition in the campaigning period may have contributed to an uneven contest.

Oxford Economics Africa said Monday events around the vote, including the arrests, had “raised serious questions about the integrity of the results”.

“Hopes of a calm and credible election in Zambia have been dashed,” the think-tank said, warning the country was “very tense”.

The vote was seen as a test of Hichilema’s first five years in office during which the economy has returned to growth.

While he touts debt restructuring and lower inflation as key achievements, critics say the gains have yet to translate into better living standards for ordinary people.

More than 70 percent of the 22 million population lives on less than $3 a day, according to the World Bank.

Zambia, Africa’s second-largest copper producer, has a long record of peaceful transfers of power through the ballot box, with every change of president since the return to multiparty politics in 1991 achieved through elections.

Source: AFP

14, August 2026

Battle For Etoudi: Tchiroma announces ‘imminent’ return ⁰

Issa Tchiroma Bakary, the self-proclaimed “elected president” of Cameroon, in exile in The Gambia since November 2025, say his return to the country is imminent.

Tchiroma lost the October 12, 2025 presidential election to veteran leader Paul Biya.

The opposition leader said his return to Cameroon is near after initiating legal proceedings in France and Switzerland against alleged perpetrators of the post-election repression.

He did not specify a date for his return.

In its statement, his team indicated that several people had suggested dates for his return and that some had even expressed “malicious intentions.” After consultations, the opposition leader stated that he wants to finalise the necessary arrangements for a return that he hopes will be “orderly.”

He called on Cameroonians residing in the country and in the diaspora to “remain mobilised and ready” to welcome the man he continues to present as “the people’s choice.”

Issa Tchiroma Bakary maintains that the institutional situation in Cameroon since October 12, 2025, strengthens his resolve to return “as soon as possible” to take over the leadership of the country.

The statement, however, does not give a precise return date, merely mentioning ongoing preparations.

The announcement comes a few weeks after the filing of two criminal complaints with the Swiss courts, based on universal jurisdiction, targeting, according to him, the alleged perpetrators of violence and acts of repression committed after the contested presidential election of October 12, 2025.

In a statement, Issa Tchiroma Bakary asserts that these proceedings concern “massacres and other acts of repression” that he attributes to the Yaoundé government against Cameroonians contesting the election results.

The former minister indicated that this action in Switzerland was a continuation of complaints filed on June 12, 2026, with the French courts, also based on universal jurisdiction.

He added that similar procedures were being considered in other countries that are party to international conventions on combating torture and enforced disappearances.

According to him, the choice of Switzerland is particularly significant because of President Paul Biya’s regular visits to the country.

The opposition leader presented these steps as a way to combat impunity for those allegedly responsible for post-election violence.

Source: Apanews

11, August 2026

Cameroon cannot be governed by absence: It is time for the CPDM to prepare a new leader ⁰

On June 7, 2026, President Paul Biya left Yaoundé with his wife for what the Presidency described as a “brief private stay in Europe.” Sixty-five days later, on August 11, he remains outside Cameroon.

The number matters. But the deeper issue is not the length of one presidential trip. It is what such a prolonged absence says about the resilience of the Cameroonian state.

A modern republic cannot depend on the physical presence of one individual to maintain political certainty. Nor can a country of nearly 30 million people be expected to operate indefinitely on assumptions, rumours and official assurances that everything is under control. The question before Cameroon is therefore no longer simply: When will Paul Biya return? It is: How long can the country continue without a credible transition plan?

President Biya has governed Cameroon since 1982. His political longevity is extraordinary, but longevity cannot itself be a substitute for succession. At 93, and after decades in power, the question of what comes after Biya should no longer be treated as an act of disloyalty. It is an unavoidable matter of national responsibility. The ruling CPDM party above all, should understand this.

The CPDM party has spent decades presenting itself as the guarantor of stability. But genuine stability is not the indefinite preservation of one political personality. Genuine stability is the ability of institutions to function, markets to have confidence, citizens to know who is responsible for decisions and the country to move from one generation of leadership to another without uncertainty or crisis. That is precisely why the CPDM should begin the process of ushering in a new leader.

This is not necessarily a call for the party to abandon its political identity or erase the legacy of Paul Biya. It is a call for the party to recognize that Cameroon is bigger than one man and the CPDM must be bigger than one presidency.

The economic cost of prolonged uncertainty is easy to underestimate. Investors do not only look at macroeconomic statistics; they look at predictability. Businesses need to know who is making decisions, whether policy will remain consistent and whether political succession can occur peacefully. Government itself needs clear authority. Public institutions need confidence. Citizens need to believe that the machinery of the state is working deliberately rather than simply continuing on autopilot. That perception matters.

Reuters has reported that Biya’s prolonged absence has already generated political concern, while his government has provided no clear timetable for his return. The CPDM itself held a senior-level meeting in July as criticism surrounding the absence mounted. Military leadership changes announced during the absence have added another layer of uncertainty.

None of this means that the Cameroonian state has collapsed. It means something more subtle and potentially more dangerous: the country is being forced to confront how dependent its political system remains on a single individual. That is an institutional weakness, not a personal accusation. The CPDM has an opportunity to correct it.

Instead of treating every discussion of succession as an attack on the President, the party should treat succession planning as an essential component of responsible governance. It should openly identify, debate and prepare a new generation of leadership capable of governing Cameroon in the decades ahead.

The alternative is to wait until circumstances make the decision for everyone. That would be irresponsible.

Cameroon has a young population, enormous economic potential and serious security and development challenges. It cannot afford a political system in which the most important question facing the nation is whether its president will return from a private European stay whose duration was never publicly defined.

Nor should the answer be to manufacture rumours about the President’s health. Those rumours are neither a substitute for facts nor a foundation for responsible politics. The stronger argument is simpler: even a healthy president eventually leaves office and a serious political party prepares for that day before it arrives. The CPDM has had more than enough time to prepare. It now has a choice.

It can continue defending the permanence of one man and hope that the system survives every new test. Or it can demonstrate that the party understands the difference between loyalty to a leader and loyalty to a nation. The latter requires courage.

The CPDM should begin an orderly, constitutional and transparent process of political renewal. It should identify credible new leadership, establish a clear succession framework, strengthen the institutions that must outlive President Biya, and give Cameroonians confidence that the country’s future does not depend on the whereabouts of one individual.

Paul Biya’s historic contribution to Cameroon can be debated by history. But the future of Cameroon cannot be postponed until history is ready to write his final chapter.

The time has come for the CPDM to usher in a new leader—not because Cameroon has ceased to need stability, but because Cameroon now needs stability that does not depend on one man.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai