The chief as landlord and ruler.
The Fon symbolises
unity and represents the link with the past, the ancestors.
This symbolism is well borne out by the perception of the land
as 'the spirit of the people' and a ritual link between them
and the ancestors. Under customary law, land is viewed more as
a source of sustenance rather than as a means of material
accumulation (Goheen 1988 and this volume). It is useful to
distinguish the political rights of sovereignty that accrue to
the chief as a political figure (the chiefdom lands), from the
rights of control and management which accrue to any landlord
in the area, of whom the chief might be one (the lineage
lands).
It is in his political capacity that the chief can rightly
claim that 'this is all my land, and these are my people'. In
this capacity, the chief welcomes all new arrivals as his
'strangers'. They, in turn, are expected to pay tribute to him
as their Fon and as a sign of their respect and submission to
his authority. Even though these new arrivals might be given
land by any of the land-owning lineages, they are still
accountable to the Fon as his people. It is also in his
capacity as political leader that land attributions, such as
for a school or other development project, are made by the Fon
in consultation with the land owning lineage.
For example, the Fon of Ndu gave land to the Cameroon Baptist
Convention Mission for the construction of a primary school, a
secondary school, a teachers' training college, and a Baptist
Bible Training College. Subsequently, the primary school was
moved to a new site while the teachers' training college was
transferred to Kom. This left much land to lie fallow and so
the Fon of Ndu requested that part of the unoccupied land be
returned to him for redistribution. Without taking any account
of customary land tenure, the Baptist mission instead claimed
ownership and sought to have the land registered under the 1974
land ordinances. This dispute necessitated the intervention of
the divisional administration from Nkambe.
In 1982, eight years after the dispute began, the Land
Consultative Board (commonly known as the Land Commission) came
to the site for judgment. It concluded that the Fon could no
longer re-enter the property he had given to the Baptist
mission. This was now the private property of the mission since
it was already registered and a land certificate for it issued.
It is reported that the ageing Fon (now of blessed memory)
overtly lamented: 'who now owns land in Ndu and in the Wiya
Clan? ' The response was that 'the Fon owns Ndu and the Wiya
(clan), but the government owns the land and everyone who lives
on it, including the Fon'.
This was a moment of great desolation. Chia's [n.d.] account of
this event states that tears rolled down the Fon's cheeks as he
walked away, helpless before the administration. Obviously, the
message the Senior Prefect and his Land Consultative Board
wanted the Fon and his notables to understand is that he was no
longer the undisputed owner of all the land in his
jurisdiction. As the land slipped from his hands, so too did
political control over the territory, and so too he is losing
control over the subjects.
Ten years later, in 1992, during the period of popular unrest
that shook the country, Ndu became the scene of intense state
violence in a tax collecting exercise. The area came under
military control and six people were killed. The local
population hastily accused their newly installed (educated) Fon
of 'culpable inertia', and condoning the brutalization and
killing of his subjects by state gendarmes. The local
population denounced their Fon and even came to doubt whether
he still represented their ancestors, the symbol of continuity
with the past. At some critical moments, certain individuals
called him by his name, an overt sign of dethronement. The
chief was swiftly categorized as an agent of the state who was
out to destroy the sacred nature of the chieftaincy. To restore
some credibility, the Fon of Ndu is said to have apologized to
his people and sought reconciliation.
The unwarranted brutality of the forces of law and order had
further wreaked untold damage to the chieftaincy. The land had
to be ritually cleansed of the blood shed on it, were it to
recover its fecundity. Such ritual reconstructions could only
be achieved if the Fon was 'in one mind and spirit' with his
people. Indeed, in such moments of crisis, the people would
expect the Fon and his notables to invoke the mediation of the
ancestors by pouring a libation to them so that the 'earth
could pass judgment'. As chief priest of the land, the Fon is
expected to pour a ritual libation at least once a year at the
kingdom's shrine, invoking the ancestors and gods of the land
to protect the land and bestow numerous blessings on it.
Similarly, each land-owning notable or lineage head is expected
to pour a libation on his land if a dispute arises, praying the
'earth to pass judgment'. Occasionally, this practice involved
drinking the Fon's wine containing a speck of earth from the
disputed area (Chilver 1990).
Reliance on the nyuy nsai (god of the earth) to pass
judgment has been the main support of ritual sanctions
pertaining to land. In the absence of conflict, notables will
still pour libations to the ancestors and the gods of the land
just before the planting season and during harvest. These
manifestations are the symbolic acts of ownership. Under
customary law, no Fon or notable would ever pour a libation on
another's land. This is so because one lineage cannot falsely
claim another lineage's land with impunity. Any act of trespass
will immediately bring about the wrath of the gods and cause
the 'earth to pass judgment' and this is a major check on
unscrupulous land accumulation by fraud. The performance of
ritual functions on land are the obligations that go with the
claim of ownership.
These are the political rights and religious duties that accrue
to the chief as sovereign. Their observance enhances the
protection of the gods and the productivity of the land. The
absence of these observances demystifies land; it loses its
spiritual value and becomes a mere factor of production. Once
land ceases to serve as a link with the past, it is easy for it
to be turned into a commodity and then subjected to
bureaucratic control.
Return to the Paideuma Contents
page
Return to the 'Mama for story' page