Truly, failure is an orphan. Like the famed abiku, the authors of the Ruga Settlement initiative ought to be ruing the day their pet initiative – conceived in the wake of the simmering herdsmen/farmers clashes – was made public. Talk of things going terribly awry; between the office of the vice president, which, in the ensuing outrage that followed, swiftly washed its hands off the initiative; the Federal Ministry of Agriculture which although initially claimed its authorship and which has since settled on playing the fall-guy, and, President Muhammadu Buhari which promptly scuppered the charade before things got out of hand. Now, Nigerians must wonder how an initiative so utterly misguided, looking as it were, like a lifting from the Miyetti Allah playbook, could find its way into the arena of public policy in a country of multiple ethnicities.
So much for the semantics of whether the word ‘Ruga’ means Rural Grazing Area (RUGA) or is actually a Hausa concept for cow settlement; there is a sense in which Nigerians would ordinarily wonder whether an initiative, to be funded solely by the federal government, and which seeks to carve out settlements exclusively for an occupational group would stand the test of equity, considering that the federal government neither owns an inch of land nor a trustee of same under the laws of the country. For even if we permit the federal government’s expansive definition of the ruga concept to embrace all shades of animal husbandry; the question that naturally follows is whether the scheme would embrace colocation with pig farmers since the ambience so described in the Ruga plan would equally do their own business a world of good!
Let’s look more closely at the federal government’s definition of the age-old problem of herdsmen/farmers clashes which, in recent years, have grown, not just in frequency but also in intensity with sophisticated arms freely deployed. In this, a lot has certainly been said of how climate change which berthed in desertification has compounded the problem of the herders, particularly with Lake Chad – the main artery of the Northeast economy – almost now nearly dried up. In the same vein, a lot more has been said of how the problem could be addressed scientifically without necessarily rupturing the fragile fabric holding the Nigerian federation together. Among such was the offer by Rivers’ Governor Nyesom Wike last week. Although meant to be a joke, he was reported as offering to supply water from Bonny to wherever it was needed in the North to boost the development of pastures whenever they finally makes up its mind! Though meant as a joke, it certainly offers a different perspective – far useful than the one-track approach being pursued by the federal government.
By far, the Achilles heel of the policy is the character of today’s herdsmen. I am not here talking here of our old time Fulani herdsmen brothers and sisters with whom we once lived together in peace and harmony. I am talking here of the AK-14 wielding pastoralist which though Fulani by association, could be from Mali or wherever. Whereas nothing has been said about the farmers being the aggressors, the exact opposite is known to be true of the new itinerant herdsmen. From Plateau to Benue, Taraba to Oyo, from Kogi to Enugu, the stories are virtually the same: entire villages being sacked as they marched on, families throwing into mourning in mindless orgies of killings and mayhem sometimes over disputes that could range from nothing to serious. While there have been instances of the farmers matching terror with terror in cyclic reprisals, over all, it has been, mostly, one sided with the visitors having the upper hand.
Yet, the federal government, in its wisdom, thinks that these unknown ‘visitors’ deserve much more than accommodation; that they need to be appeased so the country can have peace. Never mind the farmers, the hapless victims of their terror; not only are they are expected to give up their ancestral lands to the bargain, theirs is an added burden to find the milk of kindness for belligerent visitors soon to be settled in their neighbourhoods to be supplied with modern appurtenances that the federal government deems fit to put in! Those reading sinister motives to the policy are simply reminded that the Sahelian drought is not only as real as the African sun; and that the herders, being endangered species, deserved shelter from the merciless drought stealthily coming upon them.
Not a word about the fears or concerns of the farmers. Suffice to say that they would have their protein needs in meat and fura de nunu met in the new framework in addition to assurances that no stray cattle goes beyond the ruga gates to their farmsteads!
Nigeria!
For a federal government that had long perfected the art of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I do understand that such one-sided propositions are a familiar territory. I also understand the ease with which politics can get in the way of well-meaning initiatives. It explains why a federal government that would not touch the open grazing law in operation in Samuel Ortom’s Benue State with a long pole would seek a federal fiat to expropriate lands for its own version of solution to the same problem. And here, we are talking about farmers whose own cries of oppression have gone unheard being required to give up their ancestral lands in the sweet poison packaged variously as livestock transformation programme or Ruga.
That anyone can seriously imagine that a policy conceived in bad faith can deliver the peace in an environment where, the one party is known to insist on the primacy of their interests, as opposed to those of their compatriots surely beats me.
Good thing that the federal government has now suspended the Ruga Settlement policy. Let it remain so!