← RAMBLE in the JUNGLE: Debating Africa and the World

RAMBLE in the JUNGLE · Textbook · Unit 4: Kom: Tradition, Identity and Education

Issue 4.1

Should Traditional Kingdoms Write Down Their Laws and Customs?

YESWanaku Verdzekov, Power/Authority in an African Grassland Kingdom? (2023) and Dignity & Royalty of Kom Kingdom (2014)
NOEditorial counterpoint, Living Law Should Stay Alive (written for this book)

Learning outcomes

After reading this issue, you should be able to:

Explain the difference between oral and written traditions of law.
Summarize the author's arguments for a written record of Kom customs.
Evaluate the risks of codifying customary law, using historical examples.
Identify who gains and who loses power when a tradition is written down.
Write a proposal for preserving a tradition from your own community.

Introduction

If you are new to Kom. The Kom Kingdom is one of many traditional kingdoms (sometimes called fondoms) in the grasslands of north-west Cameroon. It was founded in the 1700s, has around 300,000 to 500,000 people today, and is led by a king called the Fòyn (or Fon), who is both a political and a spiritual leader. Kom tradition traces the people to a founding mother, Nandóŋ. The Kom language is itaŋiKom. Traditional kingdoms like Kom continued to exist under German, British and then Cameroonian rule, and their rulers still hold authority in many areas of daily life, such as land, customs and disputes, alongside the modern state.

Several readings use Kom words. You do not need to learn them, but the vocabulary list and Appendix C explain the most important ones.

Oral and written law. In many societies, law and history were passed on by speaking: through elders, councils, proverbs and professional historians such as the West African griots. This is called oral tradition. Written law, by contrast, is recorded in documents such as constitutions and legal codes. Many African countries today recognize customary law (the traditional law of a community) alongside national law; South Africa's constitution, for example, requires courts to apply customary law where it applies and is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

The AfoaKom. The AfoaKom is a sacred carved figure of the Kom Kingdom. It was stolen in 1966 and later appeared in a New York art gallery; after an international campaign, it was returned to Kom in 1973.

The author, Wanaku Verdzekov, is a Kom writer. Text A (2023) answers a Kom citizen's question about the limits of the Fòyn's authority. Text B (2014) is a set of replies about Kom dignity and the need to document Kom law and custom.

As you read, ask: What is gained, and what might be lost, when a spoken tradition is written down?

YES

Power/Authority in an African Grassland Kingdom? (2023) and Dignity & Royalty of Kom Kingdom (2014)

By Wanaku Verdzekov

Text A: Power/Authority in an African Grassland Kingdom?

Power and authority in an African grassland kingdom do not (should NOT) come from a colonial construct. We can agree to disagree on that, but as far as the reality on the ground goes, since the 1700s the leadership of our kingdoms has been encapsulated in INSTITUTIONS. In the Kom Kingdom, for example, the Fòyn is the leader of these institutions and a special high priest connecting living Kom citizens with the ancestral world: a physical and spiritual responsibility.

Once the ghelɨ ghɨ báŋnɨ and the ghelɨ mɨ̂ndzɨ realized how awesome this position is, their goal from day one has been to chip away at this power and authority until it can only serve the interests of the ghelɨ ghɨ báŋnɨ and/or the ghelɨ mɨ̂ndzɨ.

One Kom citizen asked: "Would it not be proper for the Fòyn and the custodian of Kom tradition (KwiFòyn) to draw a line and set a limit…?"

Nchînɨ̀Kòm is built on love, not dictatorship

Here is what I learned from my GrandPa: Nchînɨ̀Kòm is built on LOVE, not dictatorship. That's why, when a Kom citizen hears itaŋíKom spoken anywhere in the world, the reflex is to call the speaker wâyn nà wom ("child of my mother"). This traces back to the mother, founder and matriarch of the Kom family in the 1700s: Nandóŋ. It has sometimes been said that Kom citizens are children of one mother: NANDÓŊ.

Of course, I am not speaking for the Fòyn here. But the Fòyn and the KwiFòyn cannot be effective in their responsibilities if all the children of Nandóŋ are not in accord with each other on many basic issues of concern in the Kom Kingdom today, like the Kom Kingdom's institutions.

Entitlements as citizens of a kingdom come with responsibilities

So I will turn the responsibility card around to the Kom people and ask: as a Kom citizen, how much Nchînɨ̀Kòm, and how much nchínɨ ghelɨ ghɨ báŋnɨ (and/or nchínɨ ghelɨ mɨ̂ndzɨ), makes a good recipe that can benefit our indigenous Kom communities?

I think it's for Kom's children to make up their minds on that subject. I may be wrong. But I am not sure the Fòyn or the KwiFòyn have enough time or means to go round each village or nte' to see what every Kom child is doing or not doing. There is already a framework for that; the only question is whether anyone is using it. And if the framework is not being used, the appropriate question is: why not?

Artificial divides: a total waste of time

Some of our major problems in Kom should NOT actually be problems. But when citizens create artificial divides (CPDM vs SDF, Catholic vs Baptist, Jehovah's Witness vs Naija "born-again Christians", vs Fulani vs Hausa, etc.), what I personally see is a WASTE of time and a penchant for ENTERTAINMENT, not REAL DEVELOPMENT.

From talk-talk to a read/write Kom culture

If you ask me again, the challenge for the rest of the century in Kom should be to get every Kom citizen to READ and WRITE, instead of talk-talk. Oral tradition is good, but a READ/WRITE culture is what separates the "winners" from the "losers" of civilization today.

Yvɨ kɨtî

Wayn | Afo a yɨnɨ-a | Nyam ngvɨyn

Text B: Dignity & Royalty of Kom Kingdom

"Dignity and royalty" of the Kom Kingdom: before the ghel bangnɨ showed up in this region, the Kom people knew and understood the words respect, protocol, dignity, royalty… and the difference between a Nyamabo and a Nyamfɨkah.

Note that Kom called the Europeans ghel bangnɨ (Red People), not ghel fɨfnɨ (White People). There is a difference that even so-called "white people" understand: if a human figure is referred to as "white", it is most probably… a ghost (if you believe in those). Just for the record.

TribalMonk

Unfortunately, the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time now. The AfoaKom statue was stolen in 1966 and sold abroad; it took until 1973 to bring it home. There are art shops and museums around the world selling some of my grandpa's juju heads. The gheli bangnɨ have earned PhDs writing and publishing about nchinɨKom…

Question: are Kom citizens ready to do what it takes, in today's context, to safeguard Kom traditions, customs and culture? You tell me… how.

Not answering for anyone. Just my two shillings here.

As long as there is no documentation or records to point to, applying laws, customs and traditions in the Kom context will stir up feelings like the ones you are expressing here. That is normal in an age when Kom is not an island, but a tribal kommunity in the "globosphere" (so to speak).

Documentation and records? What does that mean? Why is it important? I can say "you tell me", because I think anyone with minimal reading and writing skills will understand. I assume it is understood that reading and writing skills are important for building a framework to document and record Kom tribal laws, customs and traditions for posterity (and all other practical purposes).

I cannot resolve the specific worries in your question, but I will say this. As long as we do not have a written book of reference for the laws, customs and traditions of the Kom people (one every Kom citizen can turn to when in doubt, or point to when there is a conflict of interest), there will always be doubt in the minds of Kom citizens about whether the law is being twisted, abused or obscured by those who can talk the loudest (remember: "oral" history). In other words, in a complex traditional situation, the person with the loudest voice wins, not necessarily the person on the side of the law (or tradition, or custom).

What all of the above means is that we can have a "civilized" Kom space without doing away with Kom traditions, customs and laws. But there is work to do in recording, documenting and codifying them in a way that makes them available to Kom citizens.

Is this kind of work being done? You tell me.

iBoisɨ

— Wanaku Verdzekov

Text A was written in April 2023, Text B in November 2014 (with replies). Lightly edited for this book; the date of the AfoaKom theft has been corrected.

Living Law Should Stay Alive

Editorial counterpoint Written for this book, not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

This essay was written for this textbook to present the opposing side fairly. It is not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

Wanaku Verdzekov makes a strong case for a written "book of reference" of Kom law and custom. Without it, she argues, the loudest voice wins. That danger is real. But writing down a living tradition is not a simple act of recording. It changes the tradition, and it can shift power in ways the author might not intend.

Oral law can adapt; written law can freeze

Customary law in many African societies has survived for centuries because it could change. When a new problem arose, such as a new crop, a new kind of dispute or a new religion, elders could discuss it and adjust the custom while keeping its spirit. A written code, especially one printed and taught in schools, tends to become fixed. The version recorded in one decade may be treated as "the true tradition" for generations, even if it was only one moment in a long conversation.

Colonial codification is a warning

The attempt to write down African customs is not new. Colonial governments often recorded "native law" so that their officials could apply it. Historians have shown that these records were frequently shaped by the few people the colonizers chose to consult, usually senior men and chiefs who worked with the administration. Customs that gave women, young people or rival families rights were sometimes left out. The written "tradition" then became a tool of the powerful. A new written code could repeat this mistake if it is controlled by a small group.

Who holds the pen?

The author worries that the loudest voice wins in an oral system. In a written system, the person who holds the pen can win instead. Those who can read and write, often the educated and the well-connected, may interpret the book in their own favour, while elders and ordinary people who cannot read it lose their voice. The author wants every Kom citizen to read and write, which would help, but that goal is not yet reached in Kom or anywhere else.

Tradition lives in people, not paper

Much of what makes a tradition meaningful cannot be written: the tone of a proverb, the rhythm of a dance, the judgement of an elder who knows the families involved in a dispute. The author's own essays are full of these living elements. A written code risks keeping the words while losing the wisdom behind them.

Record the process, not only the rules

There are ways to keep the benefits of writing without freezing a tradition. Communities can record how decisions are made (who must be consulted, how appeals work) rather than trying to list every rule. They can record important decisions and their reasons, as a history, while allowing future councils to reach different conclusions. Audio and video can preserve elders' voices, not just their words.

Conclusion

The author is right that a people who do not record their heritage risk losing it, or having outsiders write it for them. But a tradition is not a museum object. It is a living practice. The goal should be to record Kom tradition in ways that protect it without freezing it, and that give every Kom citizen, not just the literate few, a voice in how it changes.

— Editorial counterpoint

Vocabulary

Word or phrase	Meaning in the readings
authority	the right to give orders and make decisions
construct	something built by people, not natural
encapsulated	contained in
matriarch	female head of a family or group
accord	agreement
entitlement	a right to something
framework	a structure that supports a system
protocol	official rules of behaviour
posterity	future generations
obscured	hidden or made unclear
customary law	the traditional law of a community
codify	to arrange laws or rules into a written system
griot	a West African oral historian, poet and musician

Comprehension questions

Literal (find it in the text)

According to Text A, where does leadership in the Kom Kingdom lie?
What does wâyn nà wom mean, and when do Kom people say it?
What did Kom people call Europeans, according to Text B?
What happened to the AfoaKom statue, according to Text B?
What alternative to writing down every rule does the counterpoint suggest?

Inferential (read between the lines)

Why does the author say Kom is "built on love, not dictatorship"?
Why does the author think "the loudest voice" wins without written records?
Why does the counterpoint say "the person who holds the pen can win instead"?
What lesson does the counterpoint draw from colonial attempts to record "native law"?

Critical (evaluate and respond)

Which reading better protects ordinary Kom citizens: the author's written book or the counterpoint's living tradition? Explain.
Choose a custom from your family or community. Would writing it down protect it or change it? Explain.
How could technology (audio, video, online archives) change this debate?

Is there common ground?

Both writers agree that Kom tradition is precious, that it faces pressure from outside, and that it must not be left for outsiders to record. Both want every Kom citizen to have a voice, and both value reading and writing.

They disagree about what should be recorded and how. The author wants a written book of reference so that no one can twist the law. The counterpoint fears that a fixed code could freeze the tradition and give power to those who control the text.

A middle path might combine both: a written record of processes and past decisions, with explanations, alongside audio and video of elders; open to all citizens and revised by a recognized council, so that the tradition is protected without being frozen.

Debate and writing prompt

Debate motion: This house believes that every traditional kingdom should publish a written code of its laws and customs.

Divide the class into proposition and opposition. Each side must use at least two pieces of evidence from its reading and answer the other side's strongest point.
After the debate, hold a vote, then discuss which arguments changed minds.

Writing task: (400–600 words) Choose one tradition, custom or rule from your community. Write a short entry for a "book of reference" that explains it, then add a paragraph explaining what your written entry cannot capture.