i herders across the country.
Fulani pastoralists as violent and causers of farmer-herder conflicts
There has been a supposed increase in violent farmer-Fulani herder conflicts, and this is particularly reported in the Ghanaian media. There are quite a number of attacks on both local farmers and Fulani herders resulting in deaths and destruction of properties in almost all the ten regions of Ghana. The conflicts are especially high in Agogo in the Ashanti Region and in parts of the Eastern and Northern Regions. Historically, Fulani pastoralist conflicts with local farmers in 1988/1989 and 1999/2000 led to expulsions of the former by the Ghanaian Government through the security agencies (see Tonah 2002). Thus, the Ghanaian state itself sees farmer-herder conflicts as the fault of Fulani. In these conflicts, it is ‘us’ against ‘them’. And the blame is put on Fulani herders’ destructive behaviour - ‘they intentionally drive their cattle into peoples’ farms destroying large acres of crops and when you confront them they kill you.’27
The media put the blame mainly on the Fulani herders. The Fulani are seen as the ones perpetuating violence.
There is focus on the atrocities and gory activities of the Fulani against local residents of communities rather than the atrocities of local residents against the Fulani.28
‘There have been series of reports about Fulani herdsmen terrorizing people in some parts of the country, especially the Afram Plains in the Ashanti, Eastern and Brong Ahafo Regions.’29
Fulani claimed that another instance of bias towards them was the 14 Fulani who were killed and their properties looted and destroyed by a group of Konkomba farmers in some communities in Gushiegu on 7 and 8 December 2011, without any single person being held responsible. There have been calls for actions to be taken against Fulani pastoralists30 and in some cases open calls on community members to attack Fulani pastoralists in the communities.31 Thus, both media and local discourses frame Fulani as the ultimate causers of violent 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 att