Defenders of the Motherland: King Kuma Mbappe of Kamerun 1 / 2
The Trial of an African King: How Germany Colonized Cameroon and Betrayed a Treaty
How did it come to pass that an African king, defending his people’s rights, was tried for treason by foreign occupiers, found guilty, and hanged?
To answer this, we must journey back to 15th-century West Africa, to the ancient Duala Kingdom; now part of modern-day Cameroon.
The First Europeans at the Wouri Estuary
In 1472, Portuguese explorer Fernão do Pó and his crew sailed to the Wouri Estuary. They marveled at the abundance of shrimp and named the river Rio dos Camarões, meaning River of Shrimps. The name stuck and eventually became Cameroon.
The Duala region was governed by kings from four major ruling houses: Akwa, Bell, Priso, and Deido. These coastal monarchs commanded respect and maintained a thriving trade network, long before Europeans settled in.
The Arrival of Germany
By the 19th century, Britain and France were the dominant European powers trading along Africa’s coasts. They bartered guns, cloth, alcohol, and salt in exchange for slaves, palm oil, and rubber.
Germany entered late, arriving in 1862. But it moved quickly. By 1868, German traders had outpaced their rivals. Hamburg merchant Adolf Woermann established C. Woermann, the first German trading company in Duala. Other firms like Thormählen and Jantzen soon followed.
Germany’s leader at the time, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, was not initially enthusiastic about colonialism. He preferred to develop the German homeland. But the profits from Cameroonian agriculture and trade convinced him otherwise.
First the Merchant, Then the Soldier
Bismarck had a strategy: let the trading companies run the show. German soldiers would only intervene when native resistance threatened profits.
With this policy in place, German firms pushed into the Cameroonian interior. They cut out local intermediaries and began trading directly with inland communities. Trade was booming, and Germany wanted more land, labor, and power.
The Protectorate Treaty of 1884
By the 1870s, Muslim jihadists were advancing from Northern Nigeria into Cameroon. The coastal Duala rulers feared they couldn’t resist alone. So, they sought military protection from Germany.
On July 12, 1884, German agents Johannes Voss and Eduard Schmidt signed a treaty with Duala monarchs, including King Bell and King Akwa. The treaty promised protection. In return, Germany gained access to Cameroonian lands and resources.
At first glance, it seemed like a fair deal. But hidden beneath were sinister intentions.
A Betrayal Begins
The Germans treated the treaty not as a partnership, but as a blank check. They ignored clauses that guaranteed respect for local customs, property rights, and taxation agreements. They seized land, forced people into labor, and unleashed violence on entire communities.
The Duala kings were reduced to figureheads. Their protests were ignored or met with violence.
Historian accounts argue that the treaty wasn’t even legal. It was signed between private firms and African chiefs, not between sovereign states. Key clauses that would have preserved the Duala trade monopoly were conveniently omitted from the final version.
Prince Lokki Priso II Resists
Not all the Duala leaders accepted the treaty quietly. Chief Kuma Mbappé (also known as Prince Lokki Priso II), a proud and defiant royal, refused to sign. In December 1884, he declared war against the Germans.
The resistance lasted just 12 days. The Germans crushed it with superior firepower, and Priso was forced to sign a peace agreement.
His rebellion, though brief, foreshadowed the broken promises and brutality that would follow.
Colonization in Full Force
With resistance suppressed, Germany moved quickly. They built railways, ports, and vast plantations across Southwest Cameroon. Crops like cocoa, tobacco, palm oil, bananas, and rubber became the backbone of Germany’s colonial economy.
But to run these plantations, they needed labor. Lots of it. And they were willing to get it by force.
People were dragged from their homes and subjected to brutal working conditions. Beatings, killings, and forced relocations became routine. Entire communities were uprooted for German economic interests.
The Cost of Colonization
The so-called “civilizing mission” was in reality a violent exploitation. As author Frantz Fanon would later write:
“Colonialism hardly ever exploits the whole of a country… It extracts and exports to meet the needs of the mother country’s industries, while the rest of the colony sinks into underdevelopment.”
Cameroon was no exception. While Germany built infrastructure to move goods, it did not serve the local population. Schools and hospitals were rare. Cultural suppression, land grabs, and genocidal campaigns devastated indigenous society.
The Inevitable Reckoning
Over time, the German presence faced growing resistance. The people began to realize the treaty had been a trap. What began as a request for protection became full-blown colonization.
African leaders who stood up were silenced—some by exile, others by execution.
One such tragic story is that of an African king who dared to resist. He was tried by the very foreigners who claimed to protect him. They accused him of treason—on his own land—and sentenced him to death.
He was hanged.
Final Thoughts: Lessons from the Betrayal
The story of Cameroon under German rule is not just about colonization—it’s about broken promises and the betrayal of trust.
The 1884 treaty was meant to protect. But instead, it paved the way for exploitation, forced labor, and genocide.
Cameroon’s experience is a stark reminder that colonialism was never a partnership. It was a takeover—masked in legalese, enforced by violence, and justified by greed.
As Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o once asked:
“How could Europe lord it over a continent ten times its size?”
The answer lies not in strength alone—but in deception, division, and betrayal.
“Colonialism hardly ever exploits the whole of a country. It contents itself with bringing to light the natural resources, which it extracts, and exports to meet the needs of the mother country’s industries, thereby allowing certain sectors of the colony to become relatively rich. But the rest of the colony follows its path of under-development and poverty, or at all events sinks into it more deeply.” – Frantz Fanon
