The arrest of three teenagers in Yaoundé over alleged threats made on TikTok has reopened a familiar question in Cameroon: when online speech becomes dangerous, who exactly faces the law?
The three youths were detained by the National Gendarmerie after a video circulating on social media allegedly threatened residents in parts of the capital. Authorities said the arrests followed public complaints and were part of wider efforts to tackle crime and insecurity.
The message from law enforcement appeared clear: threats made online can have real-world consequences.
But the speed of the arrests has also sparked debate over whether Cameroon’s cybercrime and hate speech laws are applied with the same urgency when the people accused are ordinary citizens, public officials, politicians or well-connected media figures.
Questions About Uneven Enforcement
Cameroon’s cybercrime legislation criminalises certain offences committed through electronic communication networks, including threats, abuse and other forms of harmful digital conduct. In principle, the law is meant to protect the public from intimidation, hate speech, defamation and online violence. In practice, critics say enforcement often appears uneven.
“This is not about defending threats on TikTok,” one Yaoundé-based observer said. “If young people threaten citizens online, the law should act. But the same law should also act when powerful people use radio, television or social media to dehumanise communities.”
That argument has brought back memories of several past controversies.
The Ernest Obama Controversy
During the Anglophone crisis, journalist Ernest Obama, then of Vision 4, was accused by Anglophone journalists and civil society actors of using inflammatory language against Anglophones. The controversy became one of the most cited examples of media rhetoric that critics said crossed the line from political commentary into hate speech.
The National Communication Council later sanctioned Obama over remarks considered capable of fuelling tribal hatred. Reports at the time said Anglophone journalists had petitioned the regulator, accusing him of hate speech and calling for action. Obama later apologised to Anglophones, but for many critics, the sanction did not answer the bigger question of criminal accountability.
“If a poor teenager posts a reckless threat on TikTok and is arrested within days, what happens when a public commentator uses a national television platform to describe an entire community in dehumanising terms?” another commentator asked. “Is the law blind, or does it recognise rank?”
Other Cases Cited by Critics
Critics also point to remarks attributed to South West Governor Bernard Okalia Bilai, who was widely criticised after describing some youths in terms likened to “dogs”. In another case, politician Françoise Poune drew backlash over comments that critics interpreted as targeting non-indigenes in the West Region.
These controversies did not lead to widely publicised cybercrime prosecutions, even though observers argue that the damage caused by elite rhetoric can be far wider than that caused by unknown social media users.
Hate Speech and Public Trust
The concern is not new. Cameroon has struggled for years with the dangerous intersection of political crisis, ethnic suspicion, online mobilisation and state power. Human rights advocates have repeatedly warned that hate speech and dehumanising language can deepen existing conflicts, especially in a country already marked by the Anglophone crisis, political polarisation and regional tensions.
In such a context, enforcement matters not only because of punishment, but because of public trust.
When the law is seen to move quickly against the weak and cautiously around the powerful, it risks appearing less like a shield for citizens and more like a selective weapon.
A Broader Question of Accountability
The arrest of the three TikTok users may therefore be legally justifiable if investigators establish that the video contained genuine threats. But the public debate around the case shows that many Cameroonians are asking a wider question: why does accountability seem loudest when the suspects are young, poor or politically unprotected?
Legal analysts say the state has a duty to act against credible threats, especially where public safety is at stake. But they also argue that hate speech, incitement and dehumanising rhetoric from influential figures should attract equal scrutiny because such speech can normalise violence against whole communities.
“You cannot fight cybercrime only at the bottom,” one civil society voice said. “If the law is serious, it must climb the ladder.”
The Challenge Ahead
For now, the three teenagers remain the latest example of Cameroon’s growing readiness to police online behaviour. But their case has also reopened a bigger conversation about selective justice, elite impunity and the real meaning of online accountability in Cameroon.
The question is no longer whether threats on TikTok should be investigated. They should.
The question is whether the same energy will be used when the threat, insult or dehumanising language comes not from frightened teenagers with a phone, but from powerful voices with microphones, titles and political protection.
