The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ruga settlements

  • RUGA settlements is for states ready to adopt initiative, says Ganduje

    Gov. Abdullahi Ganduje of Kano State, says states, where Fulani are not indigenes, will not be required to implement the RUGA settlement initiative.

    Ganduje made the clarification shortly after attending the wedding ceremony of the son of Sen. Kabiru Gaya, Ibrahim Khalil in Sokoto on Saturday.

    The governor told newsmen that the RUGA settlement initiative was for states who could cater for the Fulanis,  and was targeted at making herdsmanship a socio-economic investment not a socio-cultural issue.

    “So States, where indigenes are not Fulani, cannot be asked to implement RUGA, as such it is for states that can cater for the Fulanis and wish to improve their herdsmanship.

    Read also: RUGA will not happen in Edo – Obaseki

    “That is why we are developing RUGA in Kano state, so that Fulani people can be in one place and enjoy all the social services like other people of the state.

    “The type of herdsmanship the Fulanis are doing now will be improved, so that they can produce more cows, more milk and ensure more economic prosperity to themselves,” Ganduje said.

    The governor, however, said the best way to improve the living standard of Fulani people was by banning their seasonal migration to the central and southern parts of Nigeria.

    “No better way to improve their lives if you don’t prevent their migration from the north to the central and southern parts of Nigeria.

    “Fulani migration should be banned otherwise they would continue to suffer and the security challenges in the country would continue to exist,” he added. (NAN)

  • RUGA: Ganduje, Kano Igbos reject call for relocation of Fulani from South

    Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje alongside Igbo leaders from Kano has rejected calls from some notable Northern political leaders that all Fulani herdsmen living in the Southern part of the country should relocate to the North the idea, describing it as divisive and retrogressive.

    Ganduje in his remarks said, “Those who are calling on the Fulani to leave South, we don’t share the same feeling with them. People have a choice, as far as Nigerian constitution is concerned, to live wherever they chose to. But they must respect laws and cultures of those they are living with.”

    For the Eze Ndigbo Kano, President General and Igbo Traditional Leader in Diaspora, Igwe Boniface Ibekwe lamented that, “Just look at what is happening now, some people are calling on Fulani to come back to the North. So if they come back what will happen to us here in the North?

    He continued, “Our people will tell us to go back to South. Is that what our forefathers wished to see us doing? We are therefore rejecting such call coming from some quarters. It does not mean well for the corporate existence of our dear country.”

    The rejections of such calls by the Governor and Ibekwe came up during a Special Dinner organised by Governor Ganduje in honour of Eze Ibekwe to rejoice with him, on his 10th Offalla anniversary, which took place at Africa House, Government House, Kano, Saturday night.

    In attendance at the dinner were the representative of the former Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr Chris Ngige, who was represented by Hon. Kene Nzekwe (FNIQS), His Highness Eze P.N. Wahiwe from Niger state, President General of Igbo in Diaspora Assembly, Chief Chi-Nwogu, Chief Ebenezer Chima and many other Ezes and Chiefs from all the 19 Northern states.

    Read also: Ganduje inaugurates RUGA committee, invites herders to Kano

    Ganduje maintained that, there was no doubt that Nigeria is a heterogeneous society with different religions and nationalities which calls for mutual respect among different people, insisting that, “As we are all creatures of Allah, it is duty-bound on all of us to always respect Allah’s creatures. No two way about it.”

    He insisted that, the issue of Fulani roaming about from one place to another should be stopped. Arguing that, “We must find a way of turning the table from being social and cultural engagement to become social and economic. Herders should drop the cultural attachment to their rearing activities and make their rearing become economically beneficial.”

    It was with this singular reason that, he called on the federal government to put a halt to the ever-increasing movement of herders from one state to another.

    “It is because we want to bring out economic benefit out of the whole exercise that we inaugurated a RUGA Settlement Committee for us to have it in Kano. And to fundamentally, run away from the insecurity posture poses by the herders farmers clashes everywhere,” he explained.

    Ganduje observed that, the major problem of herders is education, “…because they are not settled in one place for them to get educated. And that is the fact,” says Ganduje, he further argued that, “That is why we said this issue of migrating from one society to another should be avoided.”

    He added that it has been part of his effort and that of his government, to find a way of educating Fulani herders, “Because we want them to come to a reality and understand the meaning of development. Without education you cannot be able to understand the real meaning of the concept of development. You cannot understand how it works,” he explains.

    Ganduje reiterated his commitment towards making sure that RUGA project takes off in Kano, emphasising that, “It is through that, that we can able to educate our Fulani brothers and sisters. And I have been nurturing this idea long before now. That was why we sent Fulani youth, 75 of them, to Turkey to be trained on Artificial Insemination. They are back now. So we need to put them into good use for the society.”

    “I was born in RUGA (hamlet). I learned how to speak Hausa when I was in Primary One. I was educated while my parents believed and understood the dire need to educate their children and the children of others. If not because of that Allah’s Blessing I wouldn’t have this opportunity to stand before you,” he stressed.

    On the accommodative nature of the state he explained that, though Kano is a commercial nerve centre of Northern Nigeria, but argued that, the state was not an Island of itself, “We reach this position because we receive and accommodate other people from other places. Every individual you see has his or her comparative advantage,” he reminded.

    While commending all the security agencies for their efforts in making Kano a safer place, he also thanked people for their cooperation with the security agents and their continued prayers all the time, “I am happy that people have come to realise that, security is the main prerequisite for any meaningful development to take off,” Ganduje emphaised.

    Explaining further that if there is no peace and stability nothing moves, noting that, “We work day and night with the security agencies while also banking on community policing. We use ICT-based technology to curb all menace of insecurity in the land. We don’t have crisis of tribal or religious in our state. And we are striving hard to avoid them.”

    Eze Ibekwe called on his people to always be law-abiding citizens, assuring them that, “We are very happy that we are safe in the hands of our Governor, Dr Abdullahi Umar Ganduje. Kano is the safest place in Nigeria,” he noted.

    While giving a vote of thanks the representative of the former Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr Ngige, Hon. Nzekwe, hailed Governor Ganduje for accommodating all Nigerians peacefully in Kano irrespective of their tribal or religious background.

    “I am highly elated to see that we have good leaders like you Your Excellency, people that are highly detribalised and highly patriotic. We need more of you Sir in this country. And I will take back your good leadership style for accurate explanation to our people at home. We thank you very much Sir,”.

  • Ishaku: Ruga must be cancelled

    FATHER than suspend the cattle settlement programme, the Federal Government to perish the idea of reintroducing the policy, Taraba State Governor Darius Ishaku said yesterday.

    Calling for the “total cancellation” of the Ruga scheme, the governor described the scheme as a form of “colonialism”.

    Speaking with reporters in Government House, Jalingo, Ishaku said the “suspension” of the scheme was not enough, as it still raises suspicion.

    According to him, “ranching is the best modern practice of breeding cattle and solving the farmers/herders conflicts.

    Lau, Zing, Ibi and Sarduana local government areas of of the state had been earmarked for Ruga. But the protests in many states, including Benue and Taraba, as well as outrage from well-meaning individuals, informed the scheme’s suspension.

    Read also: Cattle settlements: Southeast urges Fed Govt to pilot scheme  in North

    Some youths in the state had described the scheme as “a threat to tribes in Taraba state and the nation at large,” adding that herdsmen troubling the state were aliens with an ulterior motive to grab the lands of the original inhabitants.

    Ishaku, who officially kicked against the suspended scheme yesterday said: “Ruga is colonialism; it is not about cattle; it is not even about grasses. It should not only be suspended but should also be cancelled completely.

    “The whole Ruga scheme should be canceled. You can’t do a Ruga in the entire country. I don’t accept it. It is not workable, and it will not work in Taraba state.

    “Already, I have in place the Anti-Open Grazing Law in Taraba state that prohibits open grazing but encourages ranching. And we are making a lot of progress on ranching.

    “I have submitted a request to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for us (Taraba) to be given a loan for us to do the ranching, but the CBN has refused to approve it, for reasons I don’t know.

    “Otherwise, I would have showcased what ranching is in the state. It is the best form of practice in modern days, if indeed you are talking about cattle, grasses and grazing.

    “But I don’t think they (federal government) are talking about cattle; I don’t agree that they are talking about grasses. They are talking about something else: colonisation.”

     

  • Cattle settlements: Southeast urges Fed Govt to pilot scheme  in North

    SOUTHEAST governors have yesterday insisted that they have not earmarked any land in the region for the Ruga settlement programme.

    The Federal Government announced the suspension of the policy which, it argued, would end recurring herders’/farmers’ clashes.

    The governors under the auspices of the Southeast Governors’ Forum (SGF) yesterday advised the Federal  Government on what to do.

    In statement by its Director-General, Prof Simon Uchenna Ortuanya, the Forum urged the Federal Government to kick-off the National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) in the North.

    Taraba State Governor, Darius Ishaku called for “total cancellation” of the Ruga scheme, describing the as a form of “colonialism.”

    The SGF statement reads: “The attention of the SGF has been drawn to the various attacks and campaign of calumny by our people alleging that governors of the Southeast have secretly donated land for RUGA programme being promoted by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and the NLTP as approved by the National Economic Council (NEC).”

    The governors maintained that none of the “Southeast governors has donated any land or intends to donate any land for any of the two programmes due to lack of enough land in the entire Southeast.

    “Governors of Southeast appreciate the fact that we have good and law-abiding herdsmen who have been living with us; some of them were even born here. We have been living in peace with them until recently when we started witnessing invasion of our land, kidnapping of our people, killing of defenseless natives and destruction of their farmlands.

    Read also: The Ruga conundrum

    “These herdsmen that have been living peacefully with us together with the natives have insisted that these evil as now experienced in our land are the handiwork of herdsmen moving from other states into Southeast and most of the time, these herdsmen are not even Nigerians.”

    The governors said that they will not chase away herdsmen who are peaceful and have been living peacefully among them.

    The statement further reads: “That we agreed with Herdsmen living peacefully with us and the natives that movement of cows into the Southeast should be by road transportation using trailers to their specific cow markets. No more allowing foreign herdsmen to move their cattle by foot as this is the point of conflict with the farmers and natives.”

    The governors also noted that they are committed to selling grasses and by-product of farms to support NLTP for states that have keyed into the programme.

    They stated their believe that herdsmen deserve a better life and commended the federal government for their good intentions in this direction

    “However, it must be emphasized that what Federal Government and NEC approved was NLTP and it is not compulsory for all the states but for any willing state whowants to participate in NLTP”, the statement said.

    The governors cautioned Nigerians to be careful with comments not to heat up the polity, arguing that the wisdom of economics allows states to develop along the lines of their economic comparative advantage.

    They said: “In this direction, we advise the Federal Government to immediately start the implementation of NLTP in the Northern States that have accepted the programme and where we have large expanse of land.

    “This will surely stop the movement of cows from one state to the other and put a stop to the crisis and suspicion between farmers and herdsmen.

    “The objective and success of this programme must be viewed along the lines of conflict resolution, welfare for herders, peaceful co-existence among farmers and herders, rehabilitation and reintegration of the displaced farmers/herders and natives and increase in the wealth of herders, farmers and the nation at large

    “We ask all our people living outside the Southeast, especially in the North to ignore the threat contained in the video message by self-styled Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG). We are in talks with the Northern Governors and their leaders who speak for their people and they have assured us that there is no harm that will befall our people living in various Northern states across Nigeria.

    “Finally, we advise those drumming for war to remember our mothers and children and have a rethink. In a state of war, even your friends could become your enemies. Let us bond together as one people and start to think on how to rebuild our youths whose future we ate up in the time past, rebuild our nation whose patriotism we ignored in the time past and love one another.”

  • Rethinking the Ruga policy

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo must be chuckling to himself in quiet satisfaction. The wily Ota farmer had recently come up with the thesis of an ongoing attempt at the ‘Fulanization’ of Nigeria and ‘Islamization’ of West Africa, which many analysts had readily dismissed as mischievous and self-serving. His theory was perceived in many quarters as borne out of intense dislike for the President Muhammadu Buhari administration than his ever so often professed love for Nigeria. Obasanjo’s no holds barred criticisms had contributed significantly to the downfall or demystification of virtually all those who had ruled the country after him either as military Head of State between 1975 and 1979 or elected civilian President from 1999 to 2007.

    When about two years into Buhari’s first term, Obasanjo trained his trademark missive artillery on the austere General from Daura, the self righteous mystique of the Owu warrior failed him. Even though there was much that was disappointing and disenchanting about the Buhari presidency that had raised so much expectation of change, a not insignificant number of Nigerians felt Obasanjo had overreached himself. It was widely believed that the motive of the man who had been extraordinarily lucky to rule the country for a combined period of 12 years was not the good of Nigeria but a desire to be seen as the best leader ever in the country’s history. Thus, his attempt to rally a third force against both the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was a pitiable flop. His volte face and subsequent support for Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s election as President in the 2019 polls failed. Buhari was reelected. The self-proclaimed watchman over the country had at last been demystified.

    It was the bitterness of this experience, many felt, that fuelled Obasanjo’s ‘Fulanization’ and ‘Islamization’ postulation just to discredit the Buhari administration. But then, Obasanjo’s flailing theory was given an unexpected shot in the arm by the announcement of the Federal Government’s Ruga settlement scheme, which generated widespread outrage until President Buhari’s wise and timely suspension of the rather bizarre enterprise. According to an assortment of Federal Government officials, the Ruga settlement scheme was conceived to create reserved communities where herders will live, grow and tend their cattle, produce milk and undertake other activities associated with the cattle business without having to move around in search of grazing land for their cows.

    This is ostensibly to find a lasting solution to the incessant clashes between nomadic herdsmen and sedentary farming communities. Yet, the policy would create legally designated communities in all states of the country for the benefit of cattle herders starting with a pilot scheme of 12 states. Since the cattle business is currently dominated by the Fulani ethnic group, those opposed to the Ruga settlement scheme naturally see it as nothing but a disguised attempt at Fulani expansionism and thus a confirmation of Obasanjo’s allegation of a ‘Fulanization’ agenda. This is, of course, far- fetched. On close examination, it appears to me that the Ruga settlement proposal does not differ fundamentally from the idea of ranching, which many argue is the way to go.

    Unfortunately, the President Muhammadu Buhari administration has through some of its actions including key appointments and its seeming lethargy for a long time to the violent excesses of herdsmen in large swathes of the country created the impression of being biased towards the Fulani. This perception has been reinforced by the fact that Buhari himself is a Fulani man. The public distrust of the government and its motives is what has rubbed off so negatively on the Ruga settlement scheme no matter what may be its indisputable merits.

    First, the term Ruga is itself a Fulani word and unsuitable for a national ranching policy. Second, the policy was conceived and its legal framework drawn up in secrecy, which further aroused suspicions of ethno-regional groups already agitated by perceived Fulani imperialist inclinations. A national dialogue giving opportunity for the input of all stakeholders before the adoption and unveiling of the policy would certainly have enabled better confidence building and understanding of the policy. Third, the Ruga policy and the intense opposition to it is partly a function of the crisis of federalism in Nigeria. There is no reason why it should be a federal government project. The state governments who legally control all the land within their jurisdiction should have been left alone to enact ranching laws if they so desire as a state like Benue has done. That way the locals in each state, which want to go into the ranching business, can easily do so without the scheme being interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a mechanism of consolidating Fulani domination.

    The Federal Government spokespersons who explained details of the Ruga scheme before its suspension, said the settlements would be provided with schools, health facilities, water and power supply for its residents. There would also be a security outfit, the agro rangers established to protect lives and property in the cattle colonies. It certainly did not occur to those who conceptualized this idea that it would appear to many as a variant of apartheid whereby a select group of Nigerians would have a privileged existence in a settlement where all the amenities for civilized existence are provided while majority of Nigerians across the country are subject to the vagaries of poverty, hunger, homelessness, avoidable disease and pervasive insecurity.

    Yes, the government can by all means give those in the cattle business the necessary financial support to ensure the establishment, sustenance and viability of their businesses just as is being done as regards those involved in rice, cassava, yams, tomatoes and other small and medium scale businesses in the overall interest of the national economy. But this certainly does not require a nationalized ranching policy under the control of the central government in a supposed federation like Nigeria.

    The government must go back to the drawing board to engage all stakeholders nationwide in order to rethink, redesign, re-designate and refine the Ruga policy. The unnecessarily antagonistic and hostile attitude of government spokesmen like Shehu Garba to the critics of the policy is unhelpful. The point is to patiently and painstakingly explain its rationale and merits to all Nigerians, eliminate its limitations, and make it more nationally acceptable. The reformed policy must respect the tenets of federalism, constitutionalism and respect for the equal dignity and rights of all ethno-cultural groups in the country.

    As presently conceived, the Ruga policy seems to assume that herdsmen must necessarily move their goods from the north southward in search of grazing land and water given the severe desertification and other environmental challenges in the region. But this is entirely mythical. There is absolutely no reason why the Northern states cannot take advantage of the revolutionary advances in science and technology to turn the vast arid land mass of the region to lush, fertile and productive land. Rather than create the impression of being eternally and helplessly dependent on the resources of the south – oil revenue and vegetation for its cattle for instance – the North can exploit modern science and technology to become not just self-reliant in agriculture but to also make the south dependent on it in its areas of strength.

    In the same way, nothing stops states in the south from also going into the cattle business by setting up modern, model ranches in their states as eminent human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) has suggested. In a recent most enlightening television interview, Mr. Falana sheds light on this issue and I will quote him at length in conclusion. His words: “Ranching is not a new development in Nigeria; it is not a new phenomenon. The first ranch in Nigeria was established in Cross River State at Obudu in 1951 by the British. It was later taken over by the Eastern Regional Government. The Awolowo regime had a ranch in Akunnu, now Ondo State. The Ahmadu Bello regime had a ranch in Mokwa, Niger State. Under the Gowon regime, the Audu Bako regime in Kano had the best ranches in the country. But what happened was that during the long years of military rule, all the ranches in the country collapsed. That was the beginning of people taking cattle from one part of the country to another. Those who say that we have been doing it from time immemorial are talking rubbish. It is not our history.”

    Mr Falana continued: “In fact in the South West, the Obafemi Awolowo regime introduced a species of cow imported from Argentina. So we must solve the problem and it can only be solved scientifically. And we must learn from what is going on in Africa – Botswana, Mozambique, Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia – have the best ranches in the continent. In fact Botswana has a population of 1.2 million people. The cattle population is 2.8 million. That is the largest exporter of meat in Africa and the largest producer of meat. So you don’t need to take cattle round. You produce meat and distribute the meat. We must go modern. There is no sentiment about it. For example, the South- West consumes ten thousand herds of cattle every day. You need to have a ranch. One of the state governments at the very least must invest in ranching to take care of meat production”.

    PMB must be commended for suspending the Ruga scheme. It gives an opportunity to re-think the policy altogether and re-introduce it in a more popularly acceptable manner in the national interest.

  • Updated: Gombe gov kicks against suspension of RUGA settlements

    Gombe State Governor Inuwa Yahaya on Friday expressed disappointment with the decision of the Federal Government to suspend the plan to build Ruga settlements in some states.

    He spoke with State House Correspondents after a closed door meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja

    Noting that his state had 200,000 hectares ready to donate to the federal government for the project, he said that the pastoralists deserve sympathy as the conflict is also affecting them.

    According to him, his state will continue with the Ruga settlements programme.

    He spoke on the Ruga settlements programme while speaking to Hausa service in the State House.

    Asked what type of support Nigerians will see, considering that Gombe State is now ruled by APC, he said: “I want you to know that any policy federal government initiated, Gombe State is ready to key in because present administration’s policies are meant for the development of this country.

    “For instance, on the issue of Ruga pilot scheme, I said in Gombe we have more than 200,000 hectares set aside for herdsmen use.

    “So, if other States rejected the pilot scheme, we have no reason to reject it rather to even demand for its implementation to be …….”

    Asked if Gombe is ready to join if federal government reintroduces the project, the governor said: “Up to today, I didn’t agree that the pilot scheme is been suspended.

    “We are going to continue with it, because to us is very good initiatives.

    “Considering the hardship our brother and sister (Herdsmen), are now facing, we need to find a lasting solution for them, so, as to save their lives because they are Nigerians.” he said

    Speaking on the purpose of his visit to Villa in English language, he said: “I came to see the President being the father of the nation. For me as the governor and the good people of Gombe State we felt we need to see the president to reaffirm our solidarity and support for him and equally for the ideals he stands for in this country.

    “Mind you Gombe is 100% APC and we fought with the support of the President to deliver Gombe to APC.

    Read Also: Five things many Nigerians have against RUGA settlements

    “That’s why we have to continuously engage and be giving updates on the situation in the state and what is happening in the current situation in the country. That’s why I came to see him.”

    On what he wants to do differently under APC in Gombe State, he said “Certainly, you will see difference in terms of good governance and service delivery to the people.

    Asked if he had sorted out the issue of vehicles that were allegedly taken away by his predecessor, he said: “We set up a committee and the committee is pursuing and I believe you must have seen that we have recovered quite a lot.

    “The committee is still working and we will be disclosing whatever we found and the resultant effect of whatever we are able to do.

  • Five things many Nigerians have against RUGA settlements

    The federal government on Wednesday suspended the proposed RUGA settlements after stiff opposition from many Nigerians.

    Here are some strong reservations many Nigerians expressed against the proposal:

    ·       The public viewed the policy as double-edged: After a public announcement the RUGA model was part of the National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) under supervision of Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, Osinbajo came out to debunk the information by stating the proposal had nothing to do with NLTP and his office was not supervising the activity. This was viewed as misleading and therefore, sparked an outrage among the masses.

    ·       Fulanisation agenda: Some critics perceive it as an attempt by President Muhammadu Buhari to give undue advantage to the Fulanis, who are mostly herdsmen. This Fulanisation fear was first raised by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who alleged Buhari was bent on giving his tribesmen official protection.

    Read Also: Miyetti Allah’s Sec-Gen.: we reserve comments on Ruga suspension

    ·       Many Nigerians also wonder why the federal government is involved in facilitating lands for herdsmen. Cattle rearing, many argue, is a private business venture that should be financed by interested investors, not government. Besides, they query why government is not showing the same enthusiasm for farmers who have lost more in clashes with herders.

    ·       Killer-herdsmen: The activities of killer-herdsmen didn’t make many Nigerians enthusiastic about the policy. As far as critics of the proposal are concerned, harbouring herdsmen in their communities will exacerbate killings.

    ·       Why not ranching? Many say the herdsmen should be responsible for providing feeds for their cattle through ranching as against the current practice where they invade farmlands and communities to get feeds with killings recorded in many cases. Since the herdsmen make a living from the cattle, many say they should invest in getting them feeds.

  • We reserve comments on RUGA suspension – Miyetti Allah

    Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria(MACBAN) has stated it will not comment yet on suspension of the RUGA settlement policy by the federal government.

    The federal government on Wednesday suspended plans to have settlements across the country for herdsmen following outcries against the policy.

    But Miyetti Allah National Secretary, Alhaji Othman Baba Ngelzarma, told The Nation exclusively that the association will meet and review its position on the suspension before making a public comment.
    According to him: “I cannot give you and comment now on the decision concerning the suspension of the Ruga programme by the Federal Government because I don’t have any details yet.

    “Apart from that we have to meet as an association and study the decision and review it properly before we will issue a statement to the consumption of the general public.

    Read Also: Ruga: Northern Governors calls for calm, restrain

    “I cannot say anything for now but maybe the decision of the Federal Government is as a result of complaints from different parts of the country.

    “I don’t know yet because the details are still scanty to me and our association to take a stand on the issue as it has turned out.”

    Ngelzarma, before announcement of the suspension, had stated the policy was misunderstood by most Nigerians.

    Ngelzarma, who led the local chapter of the association on a courtesy call to Gov. Mai Mala Buni, also explained the programme was not meant to be forced on any state that does not intend to establish it but for those states that will be interested.

  • Why Buhari suspended cattle settlement project

    What informed the Federal Government’s decision to suspend yesterday the establishment of cattle settlements in some states?

    The public outrage that was triggered by the policy – many would say.

    But it was learnt yesterday that President Muhammadu Buhari pulled the brakes on the Cattle Settlement Project (popularly called Ruga) because some senior officials in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development and other federal civil servants twisted the National Livestock Transformation Programme (NLTP) to achieve a different aim.

    News of the suspension was broken yesterday by Ebonyi State Governor David Umahi after a meeting with Vice President Yemi Osinbajo at the State House in Abuja.

    Many Nigerians, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) Femi Falana, Dele Adesina and Paul Ananaba, as well as elder statesmen Pa Ayo Fasanmi and Chief Ayo Adebanjo have been hailing the suspension.

    Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom and the pan-Igbo socio-political group Ohanaeze have also described the suspension as a step in the right direction.

    The Ruga project was not integrated with the NLTP agreed upon by the 36 governors at the Vice President chaired National Economic Council (NEC).

    The President also uncovered how contract sums for various aspects of the Ruga project were heavily overpriced.

    While solar panels were put at tens of millions of naira each, boreholes were to be procured at an average cost of N20 million each.

    But a new implementation committee for the project, under the auspices of NLTP, will soon take off.

    The committee might comprise members of NEC, the National Food Security Council (NFSC) and the Federal Executive Council.

    According to a source, who spoke in confidence with our correspondent, the President only suspended the Cattle Settlement Project because officials of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development derailed from what governors agreed on at NEC.

    The source said: “The President opted for the suspension of Ruga Project because it was at variance with what was agreed upon by the governors at the National Economic Council (NEC) and other levels of government on the National Livestock Transformation Programme (NLTP).

    Read also: Ohanaeze rejects Ruga settlements in Igboland

    “The officials of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, who are the promoters of the controversial Ruga Settlement Project, went overboard. They proceeded with the implementation of the scheme as opposed to the National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) developed by the National Economic Council and approved by the Federal Government.

    “The President, on hearing about the Ruga matter, first expressed surprise about the programme, and then got angry on finding out that it was different from the NLTP which NEC (the governors) and the Federal Government had agreed on.

    “The President then ordered a swift review of what Ruga was about and sought clarifications on its connection with the NLTP.”

    “Prof. Osinbajo had also strongly resisted the Ruga plan, arguing that it made nonsense of the NLTP, a very deliberate and elaborate plan developed by NEC, under his watch, and a plan which the Federal Government had okayed.

    “The President later discovered that not only was Ruga not under the VP, but that the programme was not aligned to the NLTP. He then ordered a suspension Tuesday afternoon,” the source said, pleading not to be named because he was not permitted to talk to the media.

    The grey areas which heated up the polity are:

    • sidelining of NLTP and its Action Plan;
    • lack of consultations with the governors/ states on Ruga;
    • gazetting of land in states without deferring to state governments; and
    • high cost of implementing some components of the project

    The source added: “When news about Ruga Project broke out, it immediately raised widespread controversy as state governors and other interests expressed surprise on how it was developed.

    “They alleged that there were no consultations with states, especially regarding land, which, according to the law, is vested in the governors.

    “The President was annoyed that senior officials of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and other government officials purport to use gazetted lands in the states for the purposes of building Ruga settlements without carrying along the states, creating a wrong impression that the Federal Government was trying to take over land belonging to states and the people in those states.

    “There was visible panic in the Villa on Monday when senior officials in the President’s office were trying to get information about Ruga and its connection to the NLTP, although some in the office had tried to suggest that Ruga and the NLTP are the same.”

    Responding to a question, the source said:  ”It was also discovered that the contract sums allocated for various aspects of the programme were heavily overpriced. For instance, purchases of solar panels were put at tens of million naira each while boreholes were also to be procured at an average cost of N20 million each.

    “The vice president had been publicly drawn into the fray last Friday when the Secretary of the MACBAN, Baba Uthman Ngelzarma, claimed a television interview that Ruga was being supervised by the Office of the VP.

    “An apparently angry VP same day issued what was seen as a disclaimer, disclosing that his office was not supervising Ruga and explaining that the NLTP is a different programme altogether.”

    A new committee to implement the NLTP will soon be set up.

    The government, The Nation learnt, is not planning to go back on NLTP which includes building of ranches. “The details are being worked out. But whatever is agreed upon will be optional for any of the 36 states to be part of NLTP or not.

    “The new committee might comprise members from the National Economic Council, the National Food Security Council and the Federal Executive Council, depending on the plan approved by NEC in conjunction with the President.

    “This is why the government was careful in suspending action on Ruga Settlement,” the source said.

  • Folly and falsities of Ruga settlements

    Public policies are made in the public and collective interest. Essentially, policy experts agree that public policymaking is a process and not a one-off event; it is thus “characterized as a dynamic, complex, and interactive system through which public problems are identified and countered by creating new public policy or by reforming existing public policy.” Where any policy is contrived to advance sectional or vested interests, that policy ceases to be in the common interest. And that is exactly where Nigeria finds itself with the controversial Rural Grazing Areas (RUGA) herdsmen settlement. The folly and falsities of that policy are deep-seated and very polarizing.

    What is perhaps ever more disconcerting is the proclamation attributed to presidential spokesman, Mallam Garba Shehu, that “It is true that government at the centre has gazetted land in all the states of the federation.” The ensuing pushback has been correctly strident; and criticisms of the policy trenchant. That is as it should be. Across board, ethnicity and across party lines, state governors are repudiating the policy. They were not consulted and they did not acquiesce. Neither did the Ninth Assembly give its legislative imprimatur. It seems the executive branch seized on the twilight and grey zone created by the transition from the Eighth to the Ninth National Assembly to insinuate the controversial policy into the realm of extant laws. Such subterfuge is condemnable in every regard.

    If the intent and goal of the federal government in approving the Ruga settlements programme was to curtail the problems associated with open grazing system, that intention has backfired awfully. The allegations of a hidden agenda seem correct and valid. The spectre of sectarianism is real. In theory and practice, every public policy ought to meet one of three definitional premises or a combination of two or all three to be efficacious. Hence public policies are essentially regulatory, distributive, or redistributive. The Ruga policy does not in any sense meet any of these parameters.

    First, the Ruga settlement programme serves only those engaged in the business of cattle rearing. There is no indication of how it would dovetail into the needs of farmers, who have for long been in conflict with herders. It does not cater to any other sector or trade in the commerce or organized private sector. Shockingly, it does not have the buy-in of states and local communities where the settlements will be domiciled.

    Essentially, the Ruga scheme is a preferential policy contrived by executive fiat, which will only serve marginal and sectional interests at public expense. No adjectival qualification defines such a policy slant better than the word, “folly”.  Furthermore, Nigerians who are engaged on the matter now appreciate that the grounding premise, which is being masked as public interest is equally false. The way the policy is couched, hosting a Ruga settlement is not voluntary; it is decreed.

    Theoretically, the Ruga policy does not pass the policy trajectory litmus test.  While the insecurity associated with farmers-herders conflict has been discussed extensively and various panaceas sought, arriving at the Ruga scheme as the singular and one-size fits-all solution, overlooks and indeed, ignores the essential stages of good public policy making, namely; agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. It seems clearly that the federal government summersaulted forward – in a hop-step-and jump fashion – from agenda setting to implementation. Such policy rigmarole does not conjure confidence. It undermines trust; it raises more questions than it proffers solutions.

    Beyond these observations, the federal government failed to convene town hall meetings to explore public reaction to such a divisive public policy. It also failed to call for the submission of memorandum from the public at large or interested parties, including public policy experts. Simply, the policymaking was not interactive. Yet it seems the federal government want to foist the policy on the people by all means. And the federal government seem to have forgotten that freedom is the Holy Grail of democracy. In a true democracy, you can’t force on people what they don’t want. Government policies are not entrenched by subterfuge.

    Another critical missing component that negates this policy approach is the absence of consultations within the three arms and three tiers of government. Seemingly, the decision on Ruga was done with military despatch. But this is a democracy. For most of the presumed hosting state and local news communities, Ruga is literarily and figuratively, a Greek Gift and a Trojan Horse.

    Finally, in proposing to set up Ruga settlement, the “eminent domain” clause cannot apply.  Neither can the provisions of the Land Use Act be contrived as applicable. The pertinent proviso, stipulates that the use of any land so acquired, must be for “public purposes,” which may include housing development, road and bridges, schools, hospitals, police and military barracks and recreation parks.  Private land cannot be acquired in the public interest and devolved to private profit making enterprises. Ruga should be like the fiscal bailout. Only those states that need or want it should get it.

    The Ruga policy is fraught with folly and falsities. It has unquestionable ethnic coloration; and its processes are bereft of full disclosure. Indubitably, Ruga is not your quixotic think-outside-the-box solution. It is a bad policy that, in the short to long term, will do more harm than good. From the pushback so far, the federal government ought to know by now that it must resile itself and rescind the policy – in the public and national interest.

     

    • Obaze is MD/CEO Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance, and management consultancy firm, in Awka, Anambra State.