By By: Staff Writer
A public disagreement has emerged within government circles after Presidential Press Secretary Kula Bonah Nyei Fofana suggested that the controversial group known as the National Fula Security of Liberia has existed for years and even coordinated with state security during major religious gatherings — a claim the Liberia National Police has denied.
In a personal statement that nonetheless drew national attention, Fofana argued that the group’s presence predates the recent viral video that sparked alarm. She maintained that members had historically assisted with crowd control during large Islamic events, including visits by foreign clerics, and sometimes worked alongside police officers to maintain order.
Her remarks sharply contrast with the position of the Ministry of Justice of Liberia, which earlier ordered the immediate halt of all activities linked to the group, declaring it unauthorized and potentially unlawful. The Ministry warned that any organization recruiting or operating as a security body without government approval violates Liberian law and could face sanctions.
While the Justice Ministry framed the issue as one of national security and state authority over all enforcement structures, Fofana’s comments cast the matter more as a regulatory gap than a security threat. She suggested that the real problem lies in the group’s structure and public perception, not necessarily its intentions, and proposed that authorities consider registration, oversight, and community policing integration instead of outright dissolution.
However, the Liberia National Police has publicly distanced itself from the claim of cooperation, stating it has no formal record of working with any entity under that name. This denial has deepened uncertainty and raised questions about whether the group’s activities were informal community volunteerism or an unauthorized parallel structure operating without state knowledge.
The divergence in tone between the Justice Ministry and the Presidential Press Secretary has now left the public weighing competing narratives: one portraying a potential security risk, the other describing an unregulated community initiative.
As investigations proceed, the central question remains unresolved — whether the group represents a genuine threat to state authority or simply an informal structure that outgrew legal oversight. The answer may determine whether the government moves toward enforcement or reform in addressing the controversy.
