One of FIDA Cameroon’s core tenets is the importance of respecting human rights in the context of safety and security. Sometimes these principles can work harmoniously together in areas of the law; and at other times they can be in conflict. The latter category is what we sometimes call the paradox of democracy when examined under the Cameroonian statute books. Observance of the law while upholding prevalent human rights is a working balance that every lawyer should be committed to. The issue of the legality of certain objects in the way of those attempting to gain unlawfully access to property can be difficult to address. Razor wire, on first thoughts, seem a perfect barrier to deter ill-intended persons from unlawfully gaining access to private property. But does this mean that its use within residential property is legal? I will not specifically focus on the legality of its use in Cameroon but will use the concept of the razor wire paradox as a basis upon which to compose an exploration of how employment of razor wires might be compatible or incompatible with FIDA Cameroon’s aim of upholding human rights through legal aid, advocacy, training and information.
Razor Wire is used globally for so many reasons and purposes but I will discuss it in two distinct dimensions. The first, and most common, is its use as a physical barrier to deter persons from climbing a wall or fence to gain unlawful access to a property. The second is its use as a tactile warning system to detect intruders. For example, someone trying to gain a foothold on the razor wire will make contact with the sensor leading to an alarm. This type of alarm system is used more often than the razor wire line barrier. But it is necessary to provide the two examples to understand its full capabilities. So, what about the legality of razor wire? Whilst I will not answer this question in the context of Cameroon jurisdiction, we have seen a legal opinion written on the legality of its use in the UK. An expert opinion sought by trade union Community regarding the health and safety implications of razor wire has highlighted serious concerns over how its use may be incompatible with the notion of human rights. Indeed, in the United States of America only 5 states permit the use of razor wire. In most westernised countries, and indeed Africa, the focus is on human rights and due processes. So how then does razor wire fit either into the concept of democracy or human rights?
In the absence of a specific answer in the affirmative or negative I consider this a yes and no decision. There are so many factors involved that make this a very relative answer. The context of use, the effect of razor wire on persons required to pass through a location or prohibited from doing so by law. Then you have to consider the combination of other options used to control movement or private ownership. For example did the wall or fence need to be of certain height? Is the razor wire a physical deterrent or a tactile detection system? Is the razor wire for private use or public use? The list goes on. The focus of Legal Aid, Advocacy and Training is to promote the need for rights and due process even in common law. As such, many commercial organisations do not go down the route of using razor wire for their private use. Instead, they invest and have invested in electronic personal surveillance and detection systems, with remote feed notified to potential victims and protective services. Where there is issue with potential encroachment from private to public property (such as a farmer) the chain linked fencing is electrified to protect public assets from private and vice-versa.
There are two thoughts that run through this question. The first, from a property ownership perspective, there is no offence in having razor wire on a residential property. However, the home owner’s legal right is limited to the physical boundary of their property. That right does not extend past the fence or wall line. The main point I am suggesting is that the safety of a person is more important than their property rights. “As further disclosed by common law and local statutes, a person who owns and occupies a house in the area may be termed a tenant of the owner”. In FIDA Cameroon’s case the issue is that the ownership of the home may be disputed so it is better to observe the common law and ensure the safety of those persons in the property and not the rights of the ownership.
In most cases governments and neighbouring associations would seek to press charges of unlawful detention and even manslaughter where persons were injured or died due to razor wire. Even if it was self-defense. That being said, in Cameroon there is a judicial provision for actions in case of civil or criminal acts committed within the vicinity of a property to be brought against the person causing the injury. This is under Art. 67 of the 2013 Instanter Decree No. 2013/0877/P/MINREX/CAB art 4.10 and in Civil Procedure Code text No. 2003/005 of 4th July 2003 (art 351). Where a husband is suspected of having used a weapon to “cut” his wife, a divorce may be sought. Should this prove successful then any item or object used in the act of cutting may be forfeited in addition to payments of damages, punitives and interest. This is part of domestic violence law for Cameroon which I strongly support.
If you ask whether or not this makes sense, the answer is “yes” even if it does not seem to make sense. Those who try to keep us safe need to be advocates for our basic safety. Our property rights however are not absolute and therefore must be balanced with our safety. Where the state fails to protect the life and liberty of citizens in areas deemed unsafe for the use of razor wire and other similar devices, then the barriers employed should be human rights compatible.