A new national controversy is unfolding after Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah voiced support for the proposed “Fulani National Security Force,” framing the initiative as an exercise of constitutional self-defence rather than an act of division.
Kolubah, widely recognized for his combative political style and consistent advocacy for marginalized groups, defended the idea during an appearance on Spoon Talk. He argued that communities facing persistent threats, harassment, or discrimination have both a constitutional and moral right to organize lawful mechanisms for their protection—provided such structures do not undermine the authority of the state.
The debate intensified after a video surfaced showing more than 100 men dressed in security-style uniforms and addressing an audience in a Fulani dialect. The footage quickly spread across political and civil society networks, prompting concerns about the implications of an ethnically defined security structure in a country still consolidating post-conflict reconciliation and national unity.
Critics warn that creating a security body rooted in ethnic identity could heighten tensions and potentially blur the line between community protection and paramilitary organization. They argue that Liberia’s national security framework is designed to prevent fragmentation and ensure that the monopoly on armed authority remains with the state.
Supporters of Kolubah’s position, however, say the conversation cannot ignore the legitimate security concerns of minority communities. They contend that when citizens feel exposed or unprotected, grassroots protective initiatives often emerge as a response to perceived gaps in state protection.
The issue raises fundamental legal and governance questions. Does the constitutional right to self-defence extend to organized community security structures? Can such a body function without conflicting with Liberia’s national security architecture? And would the formation of an ethnically branded force deter threats—or deepen divisions?
Security experts note that while neighborhood watch programs and community policing models are common in democratic systems, the defining factor is structure, oversight, and integration within national legal frameworks. Without clear regulatory boundaries, such initiatives risk evolving beyond their stated purpose.
Public reaction has largely leaned toward caution, with advocacy organizations warning that the move could set a precedent for other ethnic groups to establish similar formations. At the same time, some observers argue that dismissing minority security fears outright may create further instability.
For now, it remains unclear whether the proposed “Fulani National Security Force” will formally materialize. What is certain is that the debate has reignited broader national discussions about inclusion, minority protection, constitutional rights, and the delicate balance between community self-defence and state security authority.
