At the heat of the bloodletting in parts of the country arising from clashes between herders and farmers, prominent northern leaders had protested what they called the wrong profiling of the Fulani race. Their grouse then was with the labeling of herdsmen as Fulani herdsmen.
The argument was that such profiling connoted the impression that all Fulani people were herdsmen and therefore vicariously liable for clashes between farmers and herders. Some even went extra lengths to posit they knew people of other ethnic groups including the Igbo who are involved in the herding business. Thus, the incongruity of the term Fulani herdsmen as it had no way of capturing other ethnic groups involved in herding business, they argued.
Their argument drew considerable sympathy resulting in public de-emphasis on the term Fulani herdsmen in preference for herdsmen. It is not for nothing, that much of the references to that group in public discourse had since been left at herdsmen in deference to these sensibilities.
But that sympathy got a serious jolt last week when leaders of the herders association, the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) spoke at a security summit organized by the Southeast Chamber of Commerce Mines and Agriculture in conjunction with Southeast Governors’ Forum. Their leader let the cart out of the bag when he called for the establishment of Fulani youth vigilante in communities in the southeast to compliment security efforts in the zone.
Hear him, “the Fulani youth vigilante body will be working with the security, the neighborhood watch or vigilante to ensure security in all communities, as it was done in Enugu State”. For them, establishing Fulani vigilante groups in all communities should be seen as part of the contributions of the Fulani people to the security of lives and property in southeast.
But what seemed a harmless suggestion was immediately greeted with serious suspicion and virulent opposition. While some pressure groups from the southeast called for the heads of the governors from the zone for allowing MACBAN to get away with that controversial proposition, some others saw the call as reckless, insensitive and a subterfuge for a covert agenda.
A measure of the distastefulness of the call can be gleaned from the avalanche of opposition it generated across the country. The Afenifere, PANDEF and other interest groups were quick to join their counterparts in the southeast in condemning the suggestion. They were all unequivocal and vehement in their opposition especially given the quarters that suggestion was coming from.
From the look of things, the mere mention of Fulani youth vigilante was all that was needed to poison the whole idea. The reason for that is not hard to fathom. Before delving into why Fulani youth vigilante cannot sell, MACBAN by that suggestion sadly re-opened the argument as to the propriety of the term Fulani herdsmen. Why that organization was particular that only a vigilante composed of all-Fulani youths was all that was required to secure peace in the southeast remains a moot issue.
Beneath that proposal however, is the view that Fulani youths have certain skills and technology in security maintenance and enforcement that should be availed to the southeast to guarantee its safety. That is the purport of that suggestion. You cannot give what you do not have. That could as well be.
But in singling out Fulani youths for that job, MACBAN wittingly or unwittingly raised the bar on the profiling of Fulani people in the recurring security challenges in this country. Why Fulani youth vigilante instead of one that involves other ethnic groups in their state of domicile if we must go that way? Or are there some other things Fulani youths know about the security of the southeast that is not readily available to locals to warrant their involvement? What is there for them to protect, the ordinary indigenes or their cattle? And what is the population of such youths, some of whom we have been told are even foreigners?
There is need for full disclosure on the specific skills Fulani youths possess that they must be allowed to secure communities outside their states of origin. We have now been told Fulani youths have special skills in vigilante services. That amounts to the same profiling which some of their leaders have complained about. Now the labeling is coming from within, do we still blame others for seemingly assigning pejorative connotation to such terms? Or is there no link between the skills of those youths in security matters and the rampant killings and destructions that trail conflicts between herders and farmers? These are the searing posers brought to the fore by the contradiction of a Fulani youth vigilante to secure the south east.
There is also the larger question of the propriety of the Fulani youth vigilante and whether it is all that is needed to secure the southeast. Curiously, most of the states with a predominant population of the Fulani people are currently buffeted by one form of insecurity or the other that has defied efforts of the nation’s security architecture. If Fulani youth vigilante has such a high security enforcement worth to be exported to other zones, they should have been able to tame the embarrassing insurgency, banditry, kidnapping and other criminal activities in their zones. In the absence of that, it is doubtful they would be of value in securing other zones when theirs are burning.
Since charity ought to start from home, the minimum expectation is that they should have been able to demonstrate that dexterity in crime fighting in their states. But we have seen none of this. The suggestion is therefore nothing but a similitude of the man whose house is on fire, only for him to be pursuing rats fleeing the inferno. There is good reason for the outrage that trailed the suggestion.
But more seriously, crime fighting is more or less a localized issue. That is why there have been strident agitations for state and local police. This prism has also found ample demonstration in the northeast through the concept of civilian joint task force. The overriding philosophy is that locals understand their security peculiarities more and therefore better positioned to fight crime and criminal activities in such areas.
It is therefore left to be conjectured the angle the idea of a Fulani youth vigilante for communities in the southeast is coming from. Even then, there is everything wrong with the timing of the proposal. Currently, Fulani herdsmen are not seen as good neighbors given the long drawn crises they have been engaged with farmers. Many of the states in the north-central including the southeast have sad tales of their relationship with the herdsmen.
That is why opposition has continued to mount against such proposals as grazing routes, grazing reserves and cattle colonies. Of late, we are being inundated with the phraseology of Ruga settlements, whatever that means. But from the outline of what it will entail, it is the same cattle colony now wearing the toga of Ruga settlements. President Buhari said he is committed to finding lasting solutions to clashes between herdsmen and their host communities.
He should be encouraged to do so. But there is everything wrong in finding that solution on the terms of the herdsmen and their patrons as every indication point to. We are told about 12 states have embraced the cattle colony or Ruga settlement idea. So be it. For those states indigenous people are largely cattle breeders, we do not envisage problems. But the wisdom in deploying huge federal resources to fund businesses that are better left to private hands, call for serious introspection.
For many of the states that are opposed to this strategy (and they are many) ranching is the way to go. No attempt should be made to coerce them into succumbing to ideas that are at once in conflict with the wishes and aspirations of their peoples. The southeast is vehemently opposed to cattle colonies or any other form in which it is currently masquerading.
Governor, Dave Umahi said the zone is opposed to Fulani youth vigilante. Good! But we need to be told how the Fulani youth vigilante is currently operating in Enugu State as claimed by their leader. That claim should not be swept under the carpet by the Enugu State government.