A historic moment for Akum and Santa Village.

The roots of the conflict lie in the colonial distortion of indigenous governance. In the early twentieth century, Akum families migrated to Santa as distant farming settlements, remaining firmly within Akum’s customary territory. 

Colonial administration, however, unsettled the established hierarchies by elevating tax collectors and quarter heads into political intermediaries. Chia Boma, though not of Akum royal descent, yet closely connected to the palace through service and marriage; was appointed tax collector and quarter head. 

When he bypassed the Fon of Akum to deal directly with colonial authorities, a fundamental rupture emerged between customary overlordship and colonial recognition.

From Akum’s standpoint, Santa remained an integral part of its traditional domain, and any authority exercised there flowed from the Fon of Akum. 

From the Boma lineage’s perspective, prolonged settlement, colonial appointments, and favourable judicial encounters gradually conferred their autonomy and legitimacy. 

The result was a protracted struggle between Akum and Santa Village marked by court cases stretching from Enugu to Buea, episodes of imprisonment, administrative reversals, and an accumulation of mistrust. 

Three successive Bomas advanced chieftaincy claims, each meeting resolute resistance from Akum.

In the post-colonial era, the dispute acquired a further layer of complexity with the emergence of a third claimant. Seeking to counter the Boma lineage, the late Fon of Akum, HRH Ngwashi Ndikum II, installed Chief Akamatso Wanki Fru Francis as a third-class chief in Santa-Akum, presenting him as Akum’s officially recognised representative. 

This intervention fractured Akum and Santa even further, producing three competing centres of authority: the Fon of Akum asserting historical overlordship; the Bomas of Santa Village claiming autonomy rooted in settlement history and colonial-era recognition; and Chief Akamatso Wanki Fru Francis, backed by administrative orders and prefectorial recognition, including a full Kwifor. The dispute has remained before the courts for more than a decade and is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

It is against this unresolved and layered backdrop that the events of January 1, 2026, assumed their full historical weight. 

What rendered the moment extraordinary was the brotherly contrition. Pa Hope Boma, current successor of the Boma lineage, publicly acknowledged the errors of the past and recognised HRH Foh Eugene Chinelum Ngwashi I as his father and head of the wider Akum family. 

The Fon, in turn, affirmed kinship, continuity, and forgiveness, declaring the descendants of Ngehkwi Suhfor inseparable from the Akum royal household. Nearly 1,500 people crossed from Akum to Santa-Akum in a symbolic procession, culminating in the Samba dance last performed in 1977. Gifts of palm oil and salt were exchanged, sealing reconciliation in Ngemba custom.

Peace, however raises the more difficult question of authority. Reconciliation resolves the moral question; it does not settle the institutional one. What becomes of chieftaincy where history has produced overlapping claims- customary, administrative, and judicial? Can peace endure in the absence of clarity with ambiguity in the conflict?

The way forward requires a clear separation between peace and power. Peace must be declared irreversible; chieftaincy recognition must remain negotiable. Reconciliation is a moral achievement, while authority is a constitutional and customary question requiring careful deliberation.

Given the existence of three competing authorities, legitimacy now demands inclusion rather than exclusion. 

A Tripartite Traditional Council should be constituted, bringing together the Fon of Akum (as a second-class fondom exercising historical overlordship), the Bomas of Santa Village (as a third-class fondom grounded in lineage and settlement authority), and Chief Akamatso Wanki Fru Francis (as a third-class fondom deriving legitimacy from administrative recognition). Such a council would not supplant the courts, but would provide a structured forum for dialogue.

One of the conflict’s longest failures has been the insistence that only one form of legitimacy can exist. In reality, each authority draws from a distinct source: the Fon of Akum from customary history and territorial continuity; the Boma lineage from settlement history, colonial-era recognition, and community loyalty; and Chief Akamatso Wanki Fru Francis from administrative and prefectorial recognition. Acknowledging this plurality is not a concession of weakness, but an act of cultural maturity.

While dialogue proceeds, restraint is essential. There should be a freeze on new installations, the expansion of Kwifor authority, the renaming of villages or palaces, and all symbolic acts implying final recognition. At this stage, silence is wisdom.

Judicial verdicts may determine legal status, but they cannot manufacture legitimacy in traditional societies. The parties should therefore reserve the right to negotiate a culturally acceptable framework alongside the judicial process. Law may decide status; tradition sustains peace.

Rather than forcing a winner-takes-all outcome, the communities should explore functional differentiation of authority: paramount ritual seniority vested in the Fon of Akum; local customary leadership and cultural guardianship exercised by the Boma of Santa village; and administrative liaison and development coordination undertaken by Chief Akamatso Wanki Fru Francis. This approach does not dilute authority; it clarifies function.

The administration should anchor the process without politicising it. Its role is to record agreements, certify outcomes, prevent unilateral action, and protect communal peace- not to rewrite history.

Crucially, the conversation must return to the people. The conflict endured because it became elite-driven and court-centred. Village halls, family assemblies, and youth forums must now be convened jointly, so that the roadmap is understood and rumours do not reopen wounds. Peace collapses when people feel excluded from its architecture.

The philosophical shift required is simple, authority that humiliates others does not endure; peace that silences truth does not last; recognition that excludes others eventually provokes rebellion. Success will not be measured by who emerges victor, but by whether Akum and Santa Village can coexist without fear, rivalry, or litigation.

Finally, forgiveness must be institutionalised. Joint festivals, shared rites, rotational hosting of ceremonies, and mutual recognition at public events can slowly convert peace from a moment into a culture.

History has opened a door. Peace has answered the question of humanity. The future must answer the question of authority. 

With humility from the strong, dignity for the contested, and patience from all three parties, Akum, Santa Village and Santa-Akum have a rare opportunity- not to erase a century of conflict, but to outgrow it together.

*Charles Mambo is a political analyst with a Master’s degree in International Relations & Politics from Keele University, UK. He is also a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist, known for his critical engagement with national issues & his commitment to making Cameroon better