A war of words on social media has drawn in three of the most visible online voices of the Anglophone movement. Blogger Bandy Kiki has publicly questioned the conduct of activists Tapang Ivo and Mark Bareta, suggesting that they may have been involved in what she described as shady dealings. Supporters of the two men have dismissed her claims as personal and baseless. The Cameroon Journal looks at what is known and what remains unproven.
Who is involved
Tapang Ivo and Mark Bareta built large followings online as commentators and mobilisers during the Anglophone crisis, using Facebook and other platforms to share news, call for ghost town operations and push the case for Southern Cameroons. Bandy Kiki is a Cameroonian blogger and commentator whose posts on politics and society attract a wide audience, and who has never been shy of controversy.
The allegations
In her posts, Bandy Kiki raised questions about money collected from supporters, the transparency of fundraising and the relationships between activists and other actors. She did not present documentary evidence that could be independently checked. Neither Tapang Ivo nor Mark Bareta has been charged with any wrongdoing, and both have the right to have their side of the story heard.
Responses from their camp accused the blogger of seeking attention and of attacking the movement at a sensitive moment. Some followers turned the debate into personal insults, a pattern that has become familiar in online exchanges around the crisis.
Why fundraising is a sensitive issue
Diaspora contributions have played a major role in financing advocacy, humanitarian aid and communication around the Anglophone crisis. With little formal accounting and few institutions to oversee the funds, questions about who controls the money and how it is spent have surfaced repeatedly. This makes any allegation, proven or not, highly charged.
The bigger picture
The row illustrates the challenges facing a movement that is largely organised online and led from abroad:
- Leaders are often self-appointed and lack formal structures of accountability
- Rivalries are played out in public, in front of supporters and opponents alike
- Rumours spread quickly and are hard to verify or correct
- Disputes risk distracting attention from the situation on the ground
What would settle it
The most effective answer to questions about money is transparency: published accounts, clear rules on who manages contributions, and independent oversight. Until such mechanisms exist, controversies like this one are likely to recur.
For readers, the lesson is to treat claims made on social media with caution, to distinguish allegations from established facts, and to judge public figures on verifiable evidence rather than on online popularity or personal attacks.