Bamenda Traders’ Strike

The strike action organised by Bamenda traders last July 12 has come and gone. It is now time for those affected to draw lessons. The following paper goes beyond the arguments and counter arguments for and against the strike to demonstrate that both striking traders and the BCC authorities actually have convergent interests.

Last July 12, an estimated 3,000-man crowd of traders protesting increased market stall rents by the Bamenda City Council, stormed the North West Governor’s office, prompting a crisis meeting of the administration, the Bamenda City Council authorities, the Mayors of Bamenda I, II and III Councils and representatives of the striking traders; a meeting which resulted in the Secretary General of Bamenda City Council announcing a suspension of the price increase.

The trader’s ire had been provoked when, in attempting to renew their rents as due from July 1, they were informed that as per instructions from the Government Delegate, rents were henceforth only received from those who were ready to pay the sum of 20,500frs per month, up from the 10,000 frs that had been applicable for the past couple of years.

To some, this was a show case of people power. To others, it was nothing more than another instance to prove that Bamenda is a hotbed of protests. Indeed, since 1990, Bamenda has been noted for its strike actions. Recently, lawyers were seen on the streets protesting issues of interest to them. The trader’s strike, however, triggered alarm bells, being a grassroots movement, not only because these strikes have the ability to paralyze the city (4 markets and several trade unions) or spiral out of control if other groups join, but more especially, because the administrative and municipal authorities fully understood that if the grassroots go on strike, then it is a matter of livelihoods. Perhaps this is what prompted the quick response from these authorities, but what were the trader’s grievances?

Beside the protested increase in stall rents, the traders also cite unclear conditions of access to newly built stalls around the stadium and along busy streets in town, the lack of parking space for traders and shoppers, poor electrical connections or the lack thereof, belated or inexistent repairs.  (See reactions from traders). Others advance a social argument, claiming that because of low turnover in some of the city’s markets, the traders are unable to earn a living, talk less of paying the current rents, reason why, instead of maintaining the old rents, these traders are calling for reduction of the rents in their markets (See reactions from traders).

Under the auspices of the governor and upon instructions of the Government Delegate who had travelled out of the country at the time of the strike, the protested increase was withdrawn, and Bamenda Council Authoritiies ordered revenue collectors to start accepting the pre-existing rents, while admitting that the increase had not received the approval of supervisiory authority of the Bamenda City Council, the Mezam SDO; an admission which suggests that the implementation of increased rents, which had been deliberated in the Council since April 2016, was nevertheless premature.

However, the Government Delegate of the Bamenda City Council has avowed his surprise at the action of these traders which he deems to be of “bad faith”,since more than 5 meetings had been held with the traders to pave the way for the rent increase, which was not only done to streamline the rents with the law but to raise much needed finances for the City Council. The Government Delegate also explained that during the said meetings with traders’ representatives of all the markets in question, considerations had been granted to markets in remoter areas with lower turnovers. Regarding conditions of access to the new stalls, he explained that they were done on build operate and transfer (BOT) mode.

How therefore can one understand this strike, given all the prior consultation and information, the fact that the grand councillors are also supposed to explain the increase out to the traders? Simply bad faith, as the Government Delegate declares or a more deep seated discontent? Could it be that, the traditional distance the population of Bamenda has with the policies enacted by the Central Government, their opposition to the appointment instead of election of government delegate, or the feeling that their own interests are not sufficiently taken into consideration, or again a precedent of bad governance by State appointed officials has created an atmosphere of paranoia among the traders? Does the partisan opposition between the SDF and the CPDM have any role to play? These are all questions which we could not find the answer.