Two Stays in a Cell in Yaoundé: The Story of Bad Choices and Their Consequences

Two stays in a cell in Yaoundé can be enough to permanently change a person’s view of their associations, their reactions and the consequences of an act committed in the heat of the moment. The account of a French-Cameroonian man, who arrived in Cameroon as a teenager and later returned for holidays, describes this cycle: a first case involving a stolen phone, followed by a second arrest after a fight outside an establishment.

These two episodes are not presented as achievements. On the contrary, they are recounted as the result of bad choices, a violent circle of acquaintances and an inability, at certain moments, to step away early enough from a dangerous situation. Above all, they are a reminder that witnessing, following or intervening in a conflict can lead to serious consequences.

Growing up with different reference points in Yaoundé

Born in France, the protagonist explains that he lived in Cameroon for several years from the age of 13. In Yaoundé, he grew up between the Essos, Camp Sonel and Damas roundabout neighbourhoods. His mother had chosen for him to live in Damas, an environment he describes as more structured.

That decision did not prevent contact with relatives and acquaintances involved in neighbourhood conflicts. Looking back, he clearly distinguishes his own choices from the valued image of toughness or the status of a “boy.” In his view, this attitude mainly fuelled situations he could not control.

Close relationships can be protective, but they can also draw someone into conflicts that do not directly concern them. During an altercation, loyalty to a friend or family member can quickly turn into participation in criminal acts.

First case: a stolen phone after an altercation

The first stay in a cell begins with an apparently ordinary dispute. A young man asks him for money. His refusal triggers an assault. In anger, he then calls a cousin for help.

The cousin arrives with a friend. The assailant apologizes, but the situation escalates when a phone is taken from a young woman. According to the account, the device actually belonged to another young person in the group. He immediately demands that his property be returned.

Instead of returning the phone, the cousin and those with him leave with the device. The protagonist later joins them and agrees to accompany them to sell the item on Kennedy Avenue. He is given a share of the money from the sale. It is this decision that places him directly at the centre of the case.

This point is essential: not having taken the phone oneself does not remove the consequences of participating in its resale. An initial altercation, a poorly handled call for help and then a decision to follow the group can very quickly lead to a theft case.

Four days of detention described as harrowing

After being found by the police, the young man is taken to the police station with his cousin. He says that he was beaten before being placed in a cell, then spent several nights in a cramped space. The conditions he describes are particularly difficult: no privacy, sleeping on the floor, insufficient food and very limited hygiene.

His testimony also refers to reported violent practices during interrogations, as well as violence between detainees. In particular, he describes an informal system known as a “cell fee,” whereby money is demanded from a person arriving in the cell. These elements stem from his personal experience and cannot, on their own, describe detention conditions across Cameroon as a whole.

The presence of his cousin, who was already known to some detainees, reportedly limited his exposure to intimidation. This precarious protection does not change the dominant feeling in the account: fear and the realization that he did not belong in that environment.

He is released after his cousin ultimately admits that he had wrongly identified someone as the buyer of the phone. The account also mentions the intervention of relatives and alleged informal payments to facilitate their release. A week later, while preparing for his middle-school certificate examination, he sits and passes the exam despite this period of disruption.

Second stay in a cell after a fight

Several years later, during a holiday stay in Cameroon, a second episode occurs. With cousins, he goes to a nightclub in the Ngousso area, near Omnisports. A conflict breaks out between his cousins and security guards.

He explains that he initially tried to stay out of it, believing that he did not have the build or ability to fight. But when he sees one of his cousins struck on the head with a bottle, he intervenes. He then hits a security guard in the face with a belt fitted with a metal buckle.

The police arrive shortly afterwards. He and two cousins are arrested, while others flee. He reports being questioned in particular about his French identity and why he was involved in the fight. He also says that he was struck in the face, causing an injury.

The establishment’s managers reportedly then claimed that a robbery was being planned and demanded substantial sums for phones allegedly lost or damaged. His uncle disputes this version and intervenes to secure the young men’s release. After three days in detention, they leave the cell.

Breaking the cycle of violence

The difference between the two episodes lies less in their perceived seriousness than in the lesson drawn after the second one. This time, the protagonist says he decided to stop accompanying his cousins on outings that could spiral out of control. He acknowledges his responsibility for intervening, even though it was in response to one of his relatives being injured.

This decision is not based on rejecting his loved ones, but on setting a clear limit: being supportive does not mean taking part in a fight, a theft or a violent retaliation. The instinct to defend someone can have profound legal, physical and family consequences.

Experiences in detention, injuries and the fear of disappointing his mother are the breaking points here. The account also shows the importance of seeking help differently: calling a calming relative, walking away, contacting the authorities when possible, or refusing to follow a group engaged in escalation.

Issues of safety, dignity and respect for rights remain central in every case of detention. In this respect, allegations concerning surveillance practices or abusive uses of authority in Cameroon must be examined rigorously, as highlighted in this article on alleged intelligence abuses amid power rivalries and private surveillance in Cameroon.

A story of responsibility rather than glorification

The main lesson of these two stays in a cell in Yaoundé is simple: bad decisions often accumulate through small steps. Responding to a provocation through violent people, remaining silent in the face of theft, participating in a resale or hitting someone during a fight are all thresholds that can lead to arrest.

Escaping this cycle requires giving up a certain idea of honour or reputation. It also requires recognizing that an environment that values violence does not truly offer protection. On the contrary, it exposes people to injury, prosecution and detention.

To better understand the mechanisms that can lead some young people into criminal paths, it is also useful to examine contemporary forms of crime and how they are organized, including through the evolution of certain trafficking networks on social media. Whatever the circumstances, prevention begins with the ability to refuse to take part, leave the scene and choose relationships that do not put one’s freedom at risk.

FAQ

Why did these two stays in a cell occur?

The first was linked to a case involving a stolen and resold phone after an altercation. The second occurred after a fight outside an establishment, during which a security guard was injured.

What lesson emerges from this account?

The account emphasizes individual responsibility: following relatives involved in violence or theft can be enough to become directly implicated in the legal consequences.

Can the detention conditions described be generalized?

No. They reflect personal testimony about two specific experiences in Yaoundé. They do not make it possible to draw conclusions about every cell or detention facility in the country.