Oumar Farouk Sesay: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 18 December 2024:
The recent deportation of Sierra Leoneans from Guinea has triggered a retaliatory response from the Sierra Leonean government. This reaction has manifested in the arbitrary arrest and deportation of Guineans – or Sierra Leoneans mistakenly identified as Guineans – back across the border. (Photo above: Xenophobic violence in South Africa in 2019 which started with calls for deportaion of “other Africans” living in South Africa).
At the heart of these actions lies a troubling trend: the disproportionate targeting of the Fulbhe (commonly known as Fullas). Their distinct physical features make them easily identifiable, rendering them vulnerable to discrimination.
This raises a critical question: Why are the Fulbhe consistently singled out when determining “who is a Sierra Leonean”?
Ethnic groups like the Soso and Mandingo share deep kinships and migration patterns across the borders of Sierra Leone, yet they seldom face such scrutiny. History, it seems, is repeating itself.
The current government’s actions echo a dark chapter from the 1970s when Fulbhe citizens were similarly rounded up and forcibly sent to Guinea under the pressure of Guinea’s then-dictator, Ahmed Sekou Touré. Proof of their nationality was grotesquely reduced to reciting tongue twisters in Themneh or Mende – languages foreign to many, including native speakers.
Why must Fulbhe prove their “Sierra Leoneness” by meeting impossible cultural standards that others are never required to meet?
The root of this issue lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of nationhood versus statehood. Are we confusing the ancient notion of a nation, which transcends borders, with the more recent political construct of a state – a product of the colonial partitioning of Africa in the 19th century?
Anthony Smith, a foremost theorist on nationalism, defines a nation as “a community of common descent bound together by shared values, traditions, myths, and historical memories, often linked to an ancestral homeland.” Nations, therefore, are imagined communities – boundless and inclusive – while states are territorial entities defined by bureaucratic governance and citizenship.
Benedict Anderson further asserts that a nation’s borders are those of inclusion and exclusion: Who belongs and who does not? Citizenship, as defined by the state, is not the same as membership in a nation, which hinges on shared language, values, and cultural heritage.
In his book “Beyond Fundamentalism,” Reza Aslan builds on this distinction. Not all nation members are willing to be limited by state boundaries that arbitrarily exclude those with whom they share cultural ties in other geographical regions. The Fulbhes are a case in point. Scattered across Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, and beyond, they form a transnational ethnic community.
Yet this does not invalidate the Sierra Leonean identity of Fulbhe, who has contributed immensely to the country’s commerce, academia, and religion. (Photo above: Sierra Leone’s current Vice President Juldeh Jalloh is Fulla).
This failure to grasp the difference between statehood and nationhood lies at the heart of Fulbhe’s discrimination. The same inability fragmented Yugoslavia into smaller, ethnically homogeneous states.
While Sierra Leone may never face such extreme disintegration, it is imperative to address the underlying issues now rather than revert to performative, reactionary measures like mass deportations.
The deportation of Sierra Leoneans by Guinea, though severe and humiliating, demands a measured diplomatic response. The government should have sent a high-level delegation to Guinea to investigate the scale and reasoning behind these actions.
Guinea is not just any neighbouring country. Historically, it has provided refuge to Sierra Leonean leaders, including runaway presidents, and countless citizens during wars and political upheaval. Instead of reflexive retaliation, we must ask: What provoked such mass deportations?
What can be done to repair our fractured relationship? Why are Fulbhes the scapegoats in this diplomatic standoff when other ethnic groups also maintain familial and cultural ties across the border?
The paradox is glaring. In recent years, both major political parties have selected Fulbhe candidates as running mates during elections, an acknowledgment of Fulbhe’s significance to Sierra Leone. Yet today, the same group is being rounded up for deportation. This inconsistency speaks to a more profound confusion about identity and belonging.
Every Sierra Leonean has the right to demand dignity and respect. However, our collective responsibility is also to defend that dignity without undermining the state’s cohesiveness. Retaliation cannot be our sole diplomatic tool.
Sierra Leone must rise above knee-jerk responses and engage in nuanced diplomacy, honing inclusion, justice, and unity.
We cannot afford to let history repeat itself. The Fulbhes are as Sierra Leonean as the Soso, Mandingo, Themneh, Mende, or any other group. Their heritage is interwoven into the fabric of our nation.
The question is not whether Fulbhes “belong” in Sierra Leone but whether we, as a state and as a people, can uphold the ideals of inclusivity and fairness that form the bedrock of any genuinely unified nation.
Perhaps we are limiting our understanding of a nation to the definition offered by French theorist Ernest Renan, who described it as “a group of people united by a mistaken view of their past and a hatred for their neighbours.”
In our anger over Guinea’s deportation of our compatriots, are we not making the same mistake – misunderstanding who we are and what it means to be Sierra Leonean? Are we not sacrificing our kin to appease our outrage?
Wake up, Mr. President. Wake up, Sierra Leone. We are better than this reductive logic. We can define our identity without using our Fulbhe compatriots as a convenient contrast to what we are not.
They are simply jealous of the fullas in Sierra Leone because there are other tribes who are connected to Guinea but were not affected
I cannot agree with you more, Oumar Farouk Sesay. All I would add is that our having a Fula Vice President and, in the same breath, treating members of his ethnic group as non-Sierra Leoneans—and therefore as ready and easy targets for deportation—is beyond paradoxical. Indeed, it is crassly hypocritical, a testament to our parochial and bigoted outlook as a country.
Fulas are Sierra Leoneans to the core. They have no reason to be apologetic for who they are: Fula and Sierra Leonean to the core. That they are being scapegoated right now speaks volumes about our ethnically and regionally fractured character as a nation. Ironically, we seem to find a semblance of national unity only at their expense, coalescing around the divisive policy of singling them out as undesirables, fit to be thrown out unceremoniously to assert our sense of nationhood. What ignominious atavism!
Calm heads, not knee-jerk reactions, are called for in the face of the military junta in Guinea’s harsh and brutal treatment of our compatriots. Painful and humiliating as such treatment is, our government should adopt a more measured approach and, in the process, occupy the moral high ground by exposing the Guinean authorities for the unfeeling xenophobes they are. These are xenophobes who, upon grabbing power three years ago, loudly proclaimed their Pan-Africanist credentials.
What is possibly at stake in Guinea is that our brothers and sisters living in Conakry and elsewhere in the country are paying the price for a junta desperately seeking excuses to remain in power, having failed to fulfil their promise of returning Guinea to civilian rule within a time frame that is nearing its end. Their so-called aim of ridding Conakry of zones of criminality is transparently a red herring, designed to divert attention from the untenable reality of their continued grip on power.
One would have thought that a fairly, freely and transparently elected democratic Sierra Leonean government would think twice before attempting to outdo the unelected, authoritarian, gun-toting regime in Guinea at its own brutal, irrational, xenophobia-inspired game. However, we are dealing with Bio – a recidivist putschist himself – and his authoritarian, election-thieving Paopa ruling gang. Outdoing Doumbouya’s diversionary strategies from across the border is evidently too tempting for that gang to resist. It bolsters their quest – forever elusive – for and their claim – palpably false – to legitimacy.