Interview: Impunity fuelling hate speech, tribalism in Cameroon - François Bambou.

Mr President, the Head of State denounced with unprecedented firmness the proliferation of hate speech in the public space. What is your reading of the situation?

We are indeed witnessing a pivotal moment. For the first time with such clarity, tribalism is being named for what it truly is; not a mere verbal excess or rhetorical drift, but a mechanism deliberately deployed to fracture society and weaken national unity.

 One Nation has observed the steady rise in tribalistic discourse in certain media outlets, on social networks and within the political arena. These calls to hatred are not trivial; they are intended to pit Cameroonians against one another and to create artificial fault lines between communities. 

The consequences of this spread are already tangible: social tensions, identity-based withdrawal, growing mistrust among citizens, and an increase in local conflicts—sometimes minor, but revealing a weakening of the social fabric. If left unchecked, this dynamic can lead to more serious social crises and even put to question the republican pact itself.

When the Head of State refers to tribalism and hate speech as a threat to “the very foundations of our country,” he acknowledges a reality that many had chosen to ignore.

 Such discourse does not fall under freedom of opinion; it constitutes a direct attack on social cohesion and living together. In this sense, the President of the Republic is effecting a paradigm shift; the fight against tribal hatred becomes a national priority, and tolerance for entrepreneurs of division is over.

The Head of State drew a direct link between social disorder and impunity. What is your take on this?

Impunity is the fuel of tribalism and hate speech. It unleashes toxic speech and normalizes calls to hatred on ethnic or regional grounds. When an individual can insult or stigmatize an entire community, or even call for violence or murder, without ever being held accountable by the justice system, the very authority of the State is weakened.

This laissez-faire approach has fostered the dangerous idea that anything goes. Worst till, that some individuals are above the law because of their status, place of residence, or networks. Victims, drawn from all communities, no longer feeling protected, retreat into identity-based solidarities, feeding a vicious circle of mistrust, radicalization, and escalating hatred—precisely the outcome sought by the instigators of hate speech.

By announcing a firm reassertion of authority and the end of impunity, the Head of State is tackling the root of the problem. Without systematic, visible, swift, and proportionate judicial sanctions against incitement to hatred, living together remains a moral incantation with no real impact on behaviour. 

Calls for restraint and tolerance, however legitimate, become ineffective when they are not backed by the deterrent force of law and jurisprudence. In this context, the absence of a judicial response is interpreted as tacit permission, encouraging repeat offenses. 

Conversely, exemplary sanctions reaffirm that freedom of expression is limited by respect for others and the protection of social cohesion. By punishing speech that denigrates tribes and a particular group of persons, the Republic is not repressing an opinion; it is protecting public order and civil peace.

Cameroon is often presented as an exceptional cultural mosaic. Yet this diversity is sometimes a source of tension. Where, in your view, is the problem?

We must begin with a fact too often overlooked in public debate: on a day-to-day basis, Cameroonians live together without major friction. In neighborhoods, villages, workplaces, and through intercommunity marriages, peaceful coexistence is a concrete and deeply rooted reality. This is what the Head of State seeks to protect by signaling the end of impunity, and it is this harmony that purveyors of hateful discourse seek to destroy.

The fault line is therefore neither cultural nor natural; it is methodically carved out by compatriots hoping to derive some advantage from it, without measuring the risks they impose on the nation. Cameroonian diversity does not spontaneously produce division; it is cynically exploited by actors from all sides who have turned identity withdrawal into a tool for conquering or retaining power. Some politicians seek to create low-cost strongholds by confining citizens within ethnic affiliations transformed into political camps.

Added to this instrumentalization are merchants of hatred who thrive by feeding xenophobic narratives and designating internal enemies. Social media networks have finally provided an ideal terrain for activists who, shielded by digital anonymity, work to inflame tensions. One Nation is clear: diversity is not the problem. The problem lies with those who deliberately manipulate it to fracture a society that has already demonstrated its capacity to live united.

What do you think the government needs to do to really tackle impunity abetting hate speech, tribalism?

We expect genuine, structured zero tolerance. The legal framework exists, notably through the Penal Code and laws on cybersecurity and cybercrime. 

The real challenge now lies in the effectiveness of the judicial response. Justice must be the central pillar; without firm judicial decisions, no repressive action can have a lasting effect.

Concretely, this requires decisive involvement by public prosecutors. Prosecutors must systematically initiate proceedings in cases of tribal speech, without waiting for a formal complaint and without regard to the status or influence of the perpetrators. Judicial decisions must be swift and public to produce a real deterrent effect.

Within this framework, the Police and Gendarmerie must be fully mobilized as the first lines of detection and investigation, whether the acts occur in public spaces or on digital platforms. For its part, the National Agency for Information and Communication Technologies (ANTIC) has a strategic role to play in digital monitoring and the traceability of hateful content. 

Online tribal hatred must no longer be viewed as a simple excess, but as an offense likely to seriously disturb public order. Finally, the creation of a National Observatory to Combat Tribalism would help to sustainably structure this effort and assess its effectiveness.

The Head of State also clearly announced the end of complacency in this fight. What changes do you think need to happen within our society?

It must produce a salutary shock. Everyone must understand that in 2026, tribalism or hate speech is no longer a tolerated opinion but a punishable offense. Authors of hate speech must internalize a simple reality: their words will now carry judicial consequences.

This firmness must dry up the ecosystem of impunity. Television debates guest, political platforms, and above all social media networks can no longer be lawless zones where entire communities are insulted or threatened without a response from the State. 

The law must apply with the same rigour to all. For One Nation, true education begins with sanction. When tribalistic discourse ceases to be politically, media-wise, or symbolically profitable, it will recede. It is at this price that the public space will once again become a venue for republican debate, rather than an arena of identity-based conflict.

This article was first published in The Guardian Post Edition No:3665 of Tuesday January 06, 2026