Liberia: Govt Bans ‘National Fula Security’ Amid Fears of Extremism Spillover
Panic rippled across Liberia over the weekend after videos surfaced on social media showing dozens of men in formation under the banner “National Fula Security of Liberia (NFSL).” Within hours, WhatsApp groups, Facebook timelines, and diaspora forums were flooded with warnings, speculation, and urgent calls for government action.
“This is how it starts,” wrote Emmanuel Yanego, a US-based Liberian. “Today it’s community watch, tomorrow it’s something else. The government must act now.”
Another commenter posted bluntly: “We cannot allow ethnic security in Liberia. We suffered too much already.”
The viral clips — showing individuals assembled in coordinated formation, some wearing what appeared to be security-style uniforms — triggered fears that Liberia could be witnessing the birth of an unauthorized paramilitary structure organized along ethnic lines.
By Monday, the Government moved decisively.
In a strongly worded statement, the Ministry of Justice ordered the “immediate cessation and desistance” of all activities linked to the so-called NFSL, declaring that no authorization had been granted for its establishment or operation.
“National security, law enforcement, and public order are constitutional responsibilities of legally established state institutions,” the statement read. “These responsibilities cannot and will not be delegated, assumed, or appropriated by private groups operating outside the framework of the law.”
The Liberia National Police clarified that it had not held meetings with the group and had no prior knowledge of its formation.
The message was unmistakable: Liberia would not tolerate parallel security structures — especially those branded along ethnic lines.
But beyond the immediate legal question lies a deeper anxiety — one shaped by regional history.
Fulani Vigilantism and Extremism in West Africa
Across West Africa, security experts note that some vigilante formations have, over time, evolved into destabilizing forces.
In Nigeria, groups commonly referred to as “Fulani herdsmen” originally emerged as self-defense formations aimed at protecting cattle and grazing routes amid farmer-herder tensions. Over the years, however, clashes escalated into violent conflicts spanning central and southern Nigeria.
In parts of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, loosely organized community defense groups have intersected with jihadist insurgencies and ethnic militias, contributing to cycles of reprisal violence and state fragility.
Security experts caution against blanket ethnic labeling — noting that millions of Fulani across West Africa are peaceful pastoralists and traders. However, they also acknowledge that unregulated armed or quasi-armed formations, even if initially defensive, can mutate under political pressure, economic stress, or extremist infiltration.
“The pattern across the Sahel shows that when the state loses monopoly over force, space opens for armed non-state actors,” said one regional security researcher. “Not every vigilante becomes extremist. But every extremist group begins somewhere.”
That historical arc explains why many Liberians reacted with alarm.
Liberia’s history amplifies the fear. The country’s civil wars were fueled in part by factional militias formed around identity, grievances, and power struggles.
Former Lofa County Senator Steven J. Z. Zargo described the emergence of an ethnic-branded security body as “a wake-up call.”
“No security entity should be established solely on a tribal line,” he told The Liberian Investigator, a sisterly newspaper. “Private security must complement national security–not challenge it.”
Montserrado County Senator Abraham Darius Dillon urged caution and legal clarity, emphasizing that all private security firms must obtain operational permits from the Ministry of Justice’s Public Safety Division.
Meanwhile, Investment Ambassador Mohammed Bah, himself a member of the Fulani community, publicly called the naming and branding of the group “wrong.”
“No ethnic group in our country has the right to establish its own security structure,” Bah said. “The concept of national security is reserved solely for the Republic of Liberia.”
His intervention helped calm tensions, signaling that prominent Fulani leaders were not defending the branding of the group.
The Guinea Dimension: Political Optics and Regional Suspicion
Beyond domestic law, geopolitical optics complicate the issue.
The Fulani — also known as Fula — are a major ethnic group in neighboring Guinea, where politics has often followed ethnic lines. A prominent Fulani opposition figure in Guinea has historically challenged successive governments and, critics argue, has issued strong rhetoric following disputed electoral outcomes.
In that context, the sudden appearance of a “National Fula Security” group training in Liberia — regardless of its stated purpose — risks external misinterpretation.
Some observers warn that authorities in Guinea could perceive such a formation as a potential staging ground for political destabilization, particularly if narratives spread suggesting cross-border mobilization.
“There is a diplomatic dimension here,” a top government official told the Daily Observer on Monday. “Even if the intent is local community protection, the optics could be interpreted differently across the border.”
In fragile regional environments, perception can become policy.
The Fulani community in Liberia insists the NFSL was intended as a private security initiative to protect businesses and mosques amid concerns about petty crime.
“We are not forming a militia,” a community statement emphasized. “We support national security and welcome oversight.”
Yet critics argue that branding the group as “National Fula Security” crossed a symbolic line.
Youth activist Vickjue Wutoh questioned the logic publicly, “You name the group National Fulani Security of Liberia, and all the members are Fulani people, but you want us to believe it is not tribal?”
The Ministry of Justice’s swift prohibition appears designed to prevent escalation before narratives harden and mobilization deepens.
Security governance experts say early intervention is often critical.
“Prevention is always cheaper than dismantling an entrenched network,” the government official said. “If this is purely administrative, it can be corrected. If ignored, it could attract opportunists.”
By asserting that no authorization was granted and instructing agencies to investigate, the government reaffirmed the state’s monopoly over organized force — a cornerstone of post-conflict stabilization.
The action also sends a message regionally: Liberia will not permit parallel security formations that could destabilize domestic peace or strain diplomatic relations.
The episode underscores how quickly online imagery can inflame anxieties in a digitally connected society.
It also highlights the fragility of ethnic branding in security matters.
The challenge is, therefore, twofold–enforce the rule of law without stigmatizing a community; prevent destabilization without fueling profiling.
If managed carefully, the controversy could reinforce national unity by clarifying legal boundaries and strengthening oversight of private security.
If mishandled, it risks deepening suspicion and amplifying misinformation.
The government’s move, however, signals a clear posture that Liberia will not gamble with parallel security structures — especially in a region where similar formations have, over time, contributed to cycles of extremism and instability.
