A thick cloud of insecurity hangs over the nation. Kidnappers are on the loose. Killer herders are on the rampage. Banditry and cattle rustling are on the rise. No government can conduct its business with such a cloud of insecurity hanging over the country. Granted there are political opportunists counting on exploiting the volatile condition. Still, the challenge of insecurity is not in doubt.
Unfortunately, the country is boiling with a cacophony of voices on the nature and source of the challenge. And our uniqueness as a divided people unwilling to get beyond their differences never disappoints. Therefore, accounts of the nature and source of the challenge varies across political spectrum and ethno-national divisions. Worse, there’s an aggravating fog of policy proposals.
Lumping all cases of insecurity, including recent increase in kidnapping activities into one basket of farmer-herdsmen clash, the South sees land grab by foreigners. Following from this is the prediction of another civil war in the horizon. A recent social media post is introduced with an ominous quotation attributed to former President Obasanjo: “War will soon break out in Nigeria. Mark my words.” Of course, if it does, it could be the final one. For, which country can survive two civil wars in the lifetime of a generation?
On its part, the North, ever so defensive of its lumpenproletariat, which its own elite has never lost an opportunity to impoverish and exploit, sees only economic forces at work. Precisely, it sees the consequence of climate change in desertification and drying up of Lake Chad, forcing herders down south in search of pasture, and, thus, the inevitability of clashes and conflicts. But as that observed reality appears to be made with a “nothing you can do; therefore, deal with it” attitude, the South sees the North as an arrogant nose thumper.
Between the two frames of reference, there are elements of truth. There is desertification. Lake Chad is drying up. There is influx of cattle and herders from foreign countries up our northern border. There is southbound movement of cattle. There is indiscriminate cattle grazing on farmlands in the Middle Belt and Southern states. There is cattle invasion of residential areas and public spaces. There is maiming and killing of human beings in defense of cattle. And there are reprisal attacks on cattle and herdsmen.
A good understanding of the above-stated truths should lead us to two further realities. First, not all our security challenges are attributable to farmer-herder conflicts. Second, government has responsibility for all our security challenges.
The first truth is a non-brainer. Before the recent heightening of the sense of insecurity posed by herdsmen, the South lived with the menace of armed robbers, cultists, and gangsters. There were/are inbred kidnappers. Think Evans, who is still in court defending himself. The police, never tired of parading suspects before they are tried in court, recently identified some Yoruba kidnappers in public. There is the phenomenon of ole ile (house robbers) for which we have indigenous vigilantes manned by the hunter guild in Yoruba towns and villages.
Going to my second truth, government has responsibility for all insecurity challenges. But lumping all insecurity challenges with the challenge posed by foreign herdsmen in our midst unfortunately simplifies a complex matter. Focusing on the menace of open grazing by herdsmen is extremely important. But we must not think that solving that piece of our security challenge will eliminate criminal kidnappers on our highways and forest reserves. An effective measure for one case doesn’t necessarily work for the other.
Over a year ago on this page, I observed that a viable path to resolving the farmer-herdsmen crisis was to modernize cattle breeding and rearing and that nomadism is not its essence. Since last year, the federal government has put its energy into resolving the crisis. But, considering the various iterations of solutions proposed to date, it has been foggy efforts at best.
In the twinkling of an eye, we moved from grazing reserves to cattle colonies and now to Ruga settlements. How, for heaven’s sake, is it so hard to bring together all stakeholders and agree on a policy that respects the autonomy of states under the Land Use Act and so prioritize the states as the final arbiter in this matter? Surely, the Federal Government has a responsibility for national security. But states are vested with the constitutional authority for the use of land in their areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal government cannot impose any policy on them without their buy-in.
I am certain that the Presidency understands this inescapable reality. But its policy pronouncements on this matter have not demonstrated to states and their citizens its readiness to respect it. It is time the President, in his wisdom, cleared this fog of confusion and uncertainty.
The Presidency is an exalted office for good reason. It is the only office in the land that has the entire country as its constituency. Therefore, an elected president represents the whole country, not an ethnic nationality. Surely, becoming a president does not mean that one loses his or her ethnic identity. But it means that you bracket your unique ethnic identity during the time you serve, and you take on national identity. In this capacity, every ethnic nationality must have confidence in your ability to be dispassionate and fair as you deal with challenges that are national in scope.
While I have no doubt that Mr. President is capable of faithfully discharging this great responsibility of fairness and thus rallying the entire country to the greatness that it richly deserves, his SILENCE in times of great crisis such as the current one is telling. For it unfortunately creates a perception, in the minds of his adversaries (unsurprisingly) but also in the mind of his admirers, that he just doesn’t care what people think in view of what they are experiencing. This is sad!
Mr. President, you have a huge Mimbar or Pulpit which affords you the singular opportunity to rally the citizenry to your vision of the greatness that you are leading them to. Specifically, in times of manifest division arising from fears of insecurity fueled by fogs of doubt and clouds of suspicion, you have the responsibility to set matters straight and clear the fog. Unfortunately, it appears that your administration is more and more responsible for the thickening of the fog. You must now come to the rescue. It does not by any means belittle your exalted office to go on national television to calm restive national nerves. Instead, it enhances your credibility and integrity as the Number One Citizen.
From all that has been made public about it, Ruga settlement is Ranching. If so, it is not new to the country as many commentators have observed. But why give it a divisive nomenclature? In the mid-fifties, regional governments had cattle ranches. Why not now simply have state governments resuscitate those ranches for the benefit of their people? The federal government, with its prioritized interest in agriculture, can provide the enabling environment for these ranches in the form of grants to states or to specific cooperatives. This way, any Nigerian, not only Fulani herdsmen, are beneficiaries of the policy. Perceptions of favoritism or, worse, disguised land grab, is laid to rest.
Why is land grab perception so real and so dangerous? There have been testimonials on the origin of the Middle Belt farmer-herdsmen crisis where small herdsmen settlements morphed into large colonies, generating conflicts over landownership. Land Use Act takes away land from indigenous families vesting it in state governments. But these families appreciate the fact that they still have access to their land even if through lease from government. There is some satisfaction in that. But let’s be honest. No family, South or North, will ever be pleased with losing its land to non-indigenes who can claim equal right of ownership! It is not only anomalous in our context; it will certainly aggravate an already tense national climate of fear and suspicion.
Fortunately, on an optimistic note, Mr. President can easily clear this fog now, and put the devil to ignominious shame.
