LETTER FROM SACLEPEA: The Debate: H.B. Fahnbulleh Versus Ian Yhap

By Musa Hassan Bility ·

For nearly two weeks, I have followed the intense exchange between Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr. and Mr. Ian Yhap. At one point, I wished Dr. Fahnbulleh had allowed the matter to end, especially when the debate became increasingly personal. But having followed it carefully, I now believe the exchange raises important questions about Liberia’s history, our struggle for freedom and how we judge those who participated in that struggle.

Let me first clarify my position concerning Miatta Fahnbulleh.

I do not entirely disagree with her views concerning Charles Taylor. That is her interpretation of history, and she has every right to express it. My disagreement was with the disparaging manner in which she spoke about President George Weah, particularly her suggestion that President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf “unleashed” him upon Liberia.

President Weah was not unleashed upon Liberia. He was elected by the Liberian people through a constitutional and democratic process. Whatever one thinks about his presidency, his qualifications or his performance, the decision of the people must be respected. Democracy includes the right of citizens to make choices with which we may disagree. The same electorate that chose President Weah in 2017 voted against him in 2023. Both decisions deserve equal democratic respect.

However, my disagreement with Miatta cannot be transferred to her brother. H.B. Fahnbulleh is not responsible for every statement made by Miatta Fahnbulleh. Even if he agrees with her views or disagrees entirely with President Weah and the CDC, that is his right. The freedom to take an unpopular position is part of the very freedom his generation struggled to establish.

Similarly, Mr. Ian Yhap should not be condemned because of the family into which he was born. His relationship to President William R. Tolbert does not make him personally responsible for the failures of the True Whig Party. We must judge people by the positions they chose, the causes they embraced and the records they established.

But equality in the right to speak does not mean equality in historical standing.

You may dislike H.B. Fahnbulleh. You may disagree with his language, his ideology or some of his decisions. But history cannot honestly deny that he is a progressive and a fighter for political freedom. He belonged to a generation that confronted an exclusionary one party system which had dominated Liberia for more than a century. That generation suffered imprisonment, persecution and exile. It awakened young minds and helped introduce the language of justice, equality, democracy and national inclusion into Liberia’s political consciousness.

Dr. Fahnbulleh is not above scrutiny. His participation in the military government and his revolutionary activities may legitimately be questioned. But we cannot begin Liberia’s descent into conflict with those who resisted injustice while treating the political order that created the injustice as an innocent bystander. Resistance did not arise in a vacuum.

H.B.’s record is not merely something people remember. It is written. Through The Diplomacy of Prejudice, Voices of Protest, Across the Landscape and Behind God’s Back, he has spent decades examining Liberia’s political evolution, the struggle against one party rule, the 1980 rupture and the failures that eventually consumed our country. One may reject his conclusions, but no serious person can deny his intellectual contribution or his influence on generations of Liberians.

Mr. Yhap’s professional contributions as an engineer and energy-sector leader deserve respect. But this debate concerns political history. Therefore, it is fair to ask: during the years of exclusion, dictatorship, war and national suffering, what was his public political position? Where did he stand? What cause did he embrace? These are not insults. They are the same historical questions he has asked of Dr. Fahnbulleh.

I am a product of Liberia’s progressive tradition, and I remain proud of it. Experience has brought me toward the political center and taught me to appreciate every side of the Liberian story. I know and work with descendants of the repatriated settlers whose patriotism and dedication to Liberia are beyond question. But reconciliation cannot demand historical amnesia, and balance cannot mean creating a false equivalence between two very different political records.

The debate may continue, and the questions may become harder. But when both men are placed within the full history of Liberia’s political struggle, they do not occupy the same position.

On this debate, and for the record, I stand with H.B.