Editorial
One of the factors at the root of the widespread youth protests over police brutality that have paralysed several cities in the country for over two weeks now is broken trust and mutual suspicion, not only between government and the governed, but also among the diverse ethno-cultural groups. The heightened climate of suspicion is partly as a result of ill-conceived policies that sections of the citizenry believe to be a product of bad faith, favouritism and unfairness on the part of government.
The plan of the Federal Government to reactivate old grazing routes across the country as a remedy for frequent herdsmen-farmers’ clashes is one such policy that has triggered vehement resentment and outright opposition from prominent individuals, state governments, clerics as well as socio-cultural groups like the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Afenifere, Ohanaeze and the Berom Educational and Cultural Organisation (BECO), among others.
President Muhammadu Buhari stirred considerable disquiet when he revealed that, on a visit to the United States, he had assured President Donald Trump that the clashes between herdsmen and farmers were not due to the victimisation or persecution of any religious group. Rather, the President told his host, it was a cultural issue whereby the former sought access to ancient grazing routes for their cattle without which they would face economic extinction. Thus, the plan to restore grazing routes that date back to the First Republic, but most of which have fallen into disuse, is meant to remove the source of the constant friction between the two groups, by granting the herders access to fodder and water for their cattle.
Unfortunately, what the Federal Government probably sees as an effort to pacify both parties and restore peace is suspiciously perceived by the host communities through which the routes pass as a partial intervention on behalf of the herders. The resentment against the policy is made more intense against the background of the recent vehemently resisted and rejected attempt to establish RUGA communities for itinerant herders in the states, as well as the ongoing heated opposition to the proposed Water Resources Bill. The latter is perceived in many quarters as an attempt to centralise the control of water resources in the Federal Government, to the detriment of communities where they are located.
The proposed reactivation of grazing routes across the country is particularly problematic because, under the constitution, the Land Use Act vests control of all land in the state governments, many of which are opposed to the policy. In a democracy, it is impossible to impose this policy and forcibly seize control of grazing routes that pass through the states. Indeed, this policy is further likely to generate considerable tension and division, which is quite avoidable in an already highly polarised climate of suspicion in the country.
Furthermore, many of these grazing routes have become obsolete from disuse and have been overtaken by development, with thriving economic enterprises like farms or concrete physical structures constructed across them. There is no way these can be dislocated to make way for grazing routes without fierce resistance from host communities.
This policy is clearly a retrogressive journey to the backward past at a time when advances in science and technology have made cattle ranching a healthier, more secure, productive and profitable alternative. Indeed, the National Secretary of the Gan Allah Fulani Development Association (GAFDA), Ibrahim Abdullahi, has noted with remarkable broadmindedness that “what the country needs is a livestock development programme, which would involve every Nigerian since animal husbandry is now a business and not the sole right of a particular tribe”. We cannot agree more.
Leave a Reply