Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State has just signed a law to regulate grazing activities in the state. Titled “Prohibition of cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti 2016”, the law provides for grazing activities between 7am to 6pm on a daily basis while any herdsman caught with firearms or any weapon whatsoever during grazing will be charged with terrorism.
An offender is liable on conviction, to six months imprisonment without option of fine.Under the law, farm crops destroyed by the cattle of any caught herdsman, shall be estimated by an agricultural officer and the expense borne by the culprit.
Emerging reactions to the law vary depending on which side of the divide they are coming from. But most reservations have tended to centreround the provisions of the law rather than the propriety of that piece of legislation. But, implicit in those reactions is a seeming consensus that some form of regulation on the activities of herdsmen is imperative.
The first issue copiously canvassed is the seeming incongruity of aspect of that law as it relates to terrorism with the constitution of the country. Those who canvass this view, contend it is wrong to classify herdsmen carrying weapons including such light ones as arrows, knives, cutlasses and catapults as terrorists because such categorization runs against the spirits of the anti-terrorism law. For this school, the law on anti-terrorism is very clear and nowhere did it classify carrying such light weapons as an offence under it.
The other strand of the argument is that exceptions should have been made by the law against these light weapons because herdsmen need some of them to ward off criminals and also contend with the vagaries and harshness of the environment in which they conduct their business.
In this wise, it is reasoned that apart from attacks from robbers, herdsmen confront all manner of animals in the bushes and will be helpless in the face of attacks from those elements in the absence of such light weapons. There is a point here. There ought to be exceptions to the category of weapons the herdsmen could carry since in our daily lives, such light weapons are not against our laws. Herdsmen need some protection against some of the hazards they face while doing their business in the inclement bush environment.
There is also merit in the argument that by handing down terrorism charge on any herdsman carrying guns and other light weapons, the Ekiti law is bound to come into conflict with the anti-terrorism prevention law. And to the extent that law is inconsistent with the constitution, it stands to be voided by the courts. When this happens, the state government would be handicapped in approximating the goals for which that piece of legislation was made.
No doubt,Ekiti State government was goaded to classify carrying arms by herdsmen as terrorism given the pattern and magnitude of destruction that occur each time they attack communities. Such attacks usually leave in their trail sorrow and awe on account of the decimation of populations and properties comparable in terms, to terrorism onslaughts. The law would therefore strike as a desperate therapy to a malignant tumour- the objective being to ensure that Ekiti State is insulated from those ugly scenes that have been the tale of communities each time herdsmen strike.
But this objective could still be approximated without having to enact laws that will at once, come into conflict with the constitution. The same aim can still be realized by making the carrying of dangerous weapons such as the AK-47 rifle and 24 rounds of ammunitionrecovered from a herdsman in Affa, Udi local government area of Enugu state and in other places, a criminal offence.
The other issue being canvassed against the anti-grazing law is that it should have allowed herdsmen who want to relocate to do so at night. The argument is that it will minimize the disruption of social activities were the herdsmen to do so at night. With the pattern of the attacks by the herdsmen, which usually take place in the night with near invincibility, it will be difficult to persuade anyone with the above argument. Moreover, that will negate the whole essence of limiting herding between certain hours of the day.
Ekiti State government must have taken into account the reality of the operational strategy of the herdsmen in arriving at the provision requiring all activities relating to herding to commence and end between 7am and 6pm. It would seem that aspect of the law was well designed. There is the need to regulate the movement of herdsmen so as not to give room for any subterfuge by the unscrupulous ones to attack communities while they are asleep.
The law also struck the right chord by stipulating that herdsmen caught destroying the crops of farmers will have the value of such farm produce assessed by an agricultural officer for the culprit to bear the cost. This is apt given that at the heart of the conflicts between farmers and the herdsmen has been the wanton destruction of the crops of the former.
This provision is even more germane and as has been argued in several quarters, the herdsmen are also in business and it will be wrong to despoil the crops of farmers or feed their animals with them the way they had hitherto carried on. The realization that crops destroyed by their cattle will have to be paid for, will make them more circumspect in the way they conduct their business.
That way, a major source of friction between the farmers and the herdsmen would have been considerably reduced. By the same token, the constant friction that usually aggravates attacks by the herdsmen would have been substantially stymied. It is true that Ekiti State is not among the states where the herdsmen have severally wreaked havoc. But it has taken the bull by the horn by coming out with legislation to curtail the menace of the herdsmen.
It is a step in the right direction. It is a bold statement that the government will not sit-by while its citizens are mowed down by a band that has scant regard for human lives. It is therefore pertinentthat the law should be despite some reservations especially as it relates to trying those carrying weapons and other light arms for terrorism. At any rate, our courts are there to trash out issues relating to the envisaged conflict between the law and the nation’s anti-terrorism law.
Perhaps,Ekiti may not have gone this farwere the federal government forthcoming in dealing with the menace of the herdsmen. For, despite the serious danger which incessant attacks by the herdsmen portends for national peace and stability, the attitude of the federal government to it has at best, remained largely tepid.
Even with the directive from President Buhari to the military and police to stop the recurring killings of hapless Nigerians by Fulani herdsmen, no concrete action seems to have been taken in this regard. That is why rather than abate, the attacks have festered. Matters are not helped by the inability of our law enforcement agencies to bring to book the suspects arrested for the dastardly massacre at Nimbo in Enugu State and elsewhere where such attacks had occurred.
If things continue the way they are, more of the states that have been at the mercy of the insurgents will have no option than to go theEkiti way to protect the lives of their people. That is the unmistakable signal which the law has sent across. The Buhari regime should take vicarious responsibility for any eventual outcome of such conflicting legislations including the increasing lure of self-help to stem the scourge.
