nt attacks on local farmers.
‘What poses a threat to our collective security is the way that the so-called “indigenous” Ghanaians perceive the Fulanis, most of whom are actually Ghanaian citizens. Ghana’s handling of the Fulani grazers is a complete violation of the ECOWAS Protocol on Trans-Humans, which Ghana has signed up to. The protocol regulates the movement of nomadic herdsmen within West Africa. It spells out rules and regulations about where they should pass with the cattle, where there should be boreholes for their water and where there should be veterinary outposts to treat them … We (the Ghanaian authorities) are not following the protocol. This is a failure of the state, plus a deliberate manipulative process by communities in which Fulanis either pass through or are located, to intimidate, to steal, to abuse and to attack them…’33
Kwesi Aning thus sees most Fulani as Ghanaian citizens and the treatment meted out to them as a violation of the ECOWAS Protocol. He therefore sees the presence of Fulani pastoralists not as a security threat. His comments are reflective of the understanding of some 31 Ghanaian intellectuals whom we interviewed via phone on the question ‘do you consider Fulani Ghanaians?’ Twenty-eight of them agreed that some were Ghanaians as far as they satisfy the Ghanaian constitution’s provision on citizenship.
Fulani pastoralists as non-citizens
The general perception of a large section of Ghanaians is that all Fulani are non-Ghanaians and therefore have no rights as citizens. Unfortunately in Ghana, ethnicity and citizenship are intricately linked. The perception that once an individual does not claim primordial ethnic identity the individual is not a citizen tends to negatively affect the Fulani and contribute to discrimination against them. This is why Schlee (2009:223) observes that national politics and ethnicity (and citizenship) have influenced pastoralists’ relations where it is often assumed that ‘every group had a homeland and the right to expel minorities by force.’ The attainment of citizenship in Ghana as indicted in Articles 6 and 7 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana could be through other means rather than only by parenthood, indigeneity or ethnicity. Citizenship, for instance, can be attained through marriage or naturalization. However, all other ethnic groups such as the Akan, Mole-Dagomba, Ga-Dangme and Ewe who claim indigeneity are recognized by the Ghanaian state whilst Fulani are not. There is a claim of primordial identity by these indigenous Ghanaians based not only on ethnicity but along national citizenship rights that classify them as legal citizens as well as bona fide owners of land and other resources as against Fulani. The ‘strangeness’ of Fulani pastoralists is seen as the basis for their limited access to resources, land use and land rights. Whilst few Ghanaians do accept that there are Ghanaian Fulani who are distinct from say Burkina Faso or Nigeria Fulani, many think Fulani are not entitled to Ghanaian citizenship. In the light of rising violent tensions between Fulani herders and local farmers in many parts of Ghana, the Ghana Immigration Service in 2010 and 2011 started deportation of Fulani they considered illegal citizens in the country.
‘… There is nothing in our official population census/records to confirm that we have an ethnic group called Ghanaian Fulanis. Identifying the Fulani elements as “Ghanaian Fulanis” is wayward; it is a mere attempt to justify a self-constituted position on this populace and to seek sympathy for a lost cause. A Fulani is a Fulani, whether he is in Ghana or not! A Fulani who has acquired Ghanaian citizenship may be a Ghanaian (and recognized as being of Fulani extraction) but none is a “Ghanaian Fulani” … Fulanis have their roots elsewhere and must not hide behind our altruism to tempt us. Every historian and keen social commentator knows that the Fulanis are alien to Ghana, having all along been known as citizens spread across Northern Nigeria and its environs (cutting across Chad, Niger, etc.) as well as the Fouta Jallon m