62 Anyangwe/Right to self-determination under the African Charter 3.2.2 Congrès du Peuple Katangais v Zaire (1992) In Communication 75/92, the Commission was requested to recognise the Complainants as a liberation movement entitled to support in its efforts to secure independence for Katanga; to recognise the independence of Katanga; and to assist in persuading Zaire (DRC) to withdraw from Katanga. The communication hinged on article 20(1). Apart from the allegation of a denial of the right to self-determination, the communication made no allegation of specific breaches of other human rights. After considering the case, the Commission ruled that there was no evidence of violations of any right under the Charter. It held in paragraph 5 that it was ‘obliged to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire, member of the OAU and a party to the African Charter’. The Commission further held in paragraph 6 that Katanga province is entitled ‘to exercise a variant of self-determination that is compatible with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire.’ The Commission appears to suggest that the principle of territorial integrity always trumps a claim to any form of self-determination. This can hardly be correct. The Commission itself asserts that Katanga would have been entitled to claim independence from Zaire if the Complainant had adduced concrete evidence of violations of individual human rights in Katanga, including evidence of denial to the people of Katanga of the right to participate in the government of Zaire. Had this evidence been forthcoming, the territorial integrity of Zaire would surely have been called into question. In other words, Katanga’s claim to self-determination would have trumped Zaire’s appeal to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. 3.3 Re-colonisation giving rise to an indisputable right to decolonisation In Kevin Ngwang Gumne et al v Cameroun (Southern Cameroons case),47 the Commission found that there was an unresolved dispute between the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern British Cameroons and the French-speaking state of Cameroun Republic. The unresolved dispute is of a territorial nature. According to Cameroun Republic the territory of the Southern Cameroons is part of its territory. For over half a century, this claim continues to be forcefully rejected and opposed as annexation and re-colonisation. The Commission found, contrary to the claims of Cameroun Republic, that the basic population of the Southern British Cameroons indeed constitute a people within the meaning of international law (para 179), and consequently enjoy the inalienable and unquestionable right to determine their destiny. The Commission found Cameroun Republic to 47 Gumne case (n 22 above); see also C Anyangwe ‘The right to self-determination in the African Charter: a critique of the African Commission’s jurisprudence in Kevin Gumne et al v Cameroun’ in J Takougang and J Amin (eds) Post-colonial Cameroon: politics, economy, and society (2018) 65.