Without doubt, the plethora of challenges threatening the peace and stability of the Nigerian state are not unknown to the citizens.
However, towering among these problems is the rising level of insecurity across the country.
Attacks by rampaging insurgents, kidnappers and bandits have left many Nigerians in fear of the unknown.
Currently, attacks by bandits and armed herders have left in their trail sorrow, tears and bloodshed in many states across the North-West, North-Central, South-South, South-West and the South-East regions.
For instance, on Friday, May 22, eight persons were reported killed during an attack by suspected herders in Agan community in the Makurdi Local Government Area of Benue State. Three days later, at least 15 persons, including a pregnant woman, were confirmed dead in two attacks by gunmen in the Jos North and the Riyom local government areas of Plateau State.
On March 29, an alleged invasion by suspected herdsmen left 16 persons dead in Obeagu community, in the Ishielu Local Government Area of the state. In Anambra State, suspected herders were reported to have killed three persons in the Awka North Local Government Area of the state.
There have been reports of attacks on farms and farmers in the South-West region. For example, in December, 2020, the Chief Executive Officer of Kunfayakun Green Treasures Limited, Fatai Aborode, was reportedly killed by suspected herdsmen near his farm in Oyo State.
In November, 2020, a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Olu Falae, raised the alarm over the alleged invasion of his farm and destruction of harvested crops worth millions of naira by some Fulani herdsmen.
Meanwhile, Nigerians have expressed concern over the invasion of forest reserves in the South by armed herders and how their activities on farmlands are worsening food production by farmers and the economic hardship faced by Nigerians who eke out a living from agriculture.
This, among other issues, prompted the governors of the 17 southern states to impose a ban on open grazing in the region, shortly after a four-hour meeting in Asaba, the Delta State capital, on May 11, as part of efforts to address the incursion of bandits and armed herdsmen in the region.
The Chairman of the forum and Ondo State Governor, Rotimi Akeredolu, who read the 12-point communiqué, had said, “Southern Nigeria Governors Forum expressed very grave concern on the security challenges currently plaguing the nation and strongly urged that Mr. President should address Nigerians on the challenges of insecurity and restore the confidence of our people.
“We observed that the incursion of armed herders, criminals, and bandits into the Southern part of the country has presented a severe security challenge such that citizens are not able to live their normal lives including pursuing various productive activities leading to a threat to food supply and general security.
“Consequently, the meeting resolved that open grazing of cattle be banned across Southern Nigeria.”
But the decision of the governors was vehemently opposed by the Presidency and the Attorney-General of the Federation/Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, who not only compared their action to the prohibition of spare parts trading in the North by northern governors but also said such a decision (banning open grazing) required a constitutional amendment as the Constitution guaranteed the right of freedom of movement.
“If you are talking of a constitutionally guaranteed right, the better approach to it is perhaps to go back and ensure that the constitution is amended. The freedom and liberty of movement, amongst others, is established by the constitution.
“If by an inch, you want to have any compromise, the better approach is to go back to the National Assembly for open grazing to be prohibited and see whether you can have the desired support for the constitutional amendment in that respect. But it is a very dangerous position for any governor in Nigeria to think that he can bring about any compromise on the freedom and liberty of individuals to move around,” Malami had said during an interview with Channels Television.
But the AGF’s comments did not go down well with prominent lawyers who faulted his position on the matter, arguing that while governors were empowered to ban open grazing, the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution did not cover animals.
The Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Prof Itse Sagay, also a senior advocate, said, “The governors are within their rights to ban open grazing. The Land Use Act gives them that power, so I think it is a straight forward matter.”
Similarly, another lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, said the southern governors’ decision was constitutional.
“The ban is on animals, not on human beings. It does not offend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in any way. It is only animals that graze; human beings do not eat grass. So, when there is a ban on open grazing, it means that animals are not allowed to stray without control over people’s property or land,” Adegboruwa stated.
But while Nigerians continued to react, the Presidency threw its weight behind Malami, describing the ban on open grazing as one with “questionable legality,” and “pre-empted, for whatever it is intended to achieve”.
“It is equally true that their (southern governors) announcement is of questionable legality, given the constitutional right of all Nigerians to enjoy the same rights and freedoms within every one of our 36 states (and FCT)-regardless of the state of their birth or residence,” the statement by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, titled, ‘President Buhari okays deep- rooted solutions to herdsmen attacks, clears way for ranching and revival of forest reserves,’ read in part.
However, irked by the statement issued by Shehu on behalf of the Presidency, Akeredolu challenged Buhari’s spokesman to reveal “the real motive (s) of those he serves,” averring that “no inch of the space delineated and known, currently, as South-West, and indeed the whole South, will be ceded to a band of invaders masquerading as herdsmen under any guise”.
“He cannot continue to hide under some opaque, omnibus and dubious directives to create confusion in the polity. The easy recourse to mendacious uppity in pushing a barely disguised pernicious agenda is well understood,” the governor added in a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Special Duties and Strategy, Dr Doyin Odebowale.
Interestingly, the call for the prohibition of open grazing has not come from the South alone.
For example, the Governor of Katsina State, Aminu Masari, while advocating ranching on Tuesday, described open grazing as un-Islamic.
“The roaming about, for us, is un-Islamic and it is not the best. It is part of the problems we are having today. I don’t support the idea that we should continue with open grazing.”
In February, governors of the 19 northern states, under the auspices of the Northern States Governors’ Forum, at an emergency virtual meeting acknowledged that the current system of cattle rearing, through grazing, was unsustainable.
A statement by the Plateau State Governor and chairman of the forum, Mr Simon Lalong, through his Director of Press and Public Affairs, Makut Macham, read in part, “The Forum notes with concern that the current system of herding conducted mainly through open grazing is no longer sustainable in view of growing urbanisation and population of the country. Consequently, forum resolved to aggressively sensitise herdsmen on the need to adopt new methods of herding by ranching or other acceptable modern methods.”
But will the ban on open grazing in the South be weak in enforcement without legal teeth or should the affected states enact specific laws to regulate grazing?
Out of the 17 southern states, only Oyo, Ekiti, Abia, Ebonyi and Bayelsa have enacted anti-open grazing laws.
A lawyer, Mr Jiti Ogunye, said, “While it may be desirable to enact a law specifically to restrict the movement of animals within a state, in this case cattle-because that’s what an open grazing law will mean – it’s like you’re restricting them, just as Ekiti ( under former governor Ayo Fayose) and Benue State have done. My position is that even without the enactment of a law, by policy and executive orders within those states, the open grazing of animals can be prohibited.”
Ogunye explained that under the Land Use Act, a state government, through a committee called the Land Use and Allocation Committee, was empowered to provide regulations on how land should be used within that state, including regulations governing allocations of land.
He noted that state governments acquire land which they sell by way of allocation.
“So, my submission is that under the Land Use Act, which provides that the governor of a state is the trustee of the land of that state by way of policy, by way of regulation, by way of executing orders, you have a situation whereby the movement of animals, in this case, cattle specifically, can be restricted. I know that under the criminal law, there is what is called criminal trespass and so, it is not correct to say that the criminal laws that we have cannot take care of the oddity of cattle grazing on people’s land.
“I know that all the South-West states have forestry laws because they all derive from the western region. Other southern states, I presume, will have something like that,” he said.
On what the implication would be if a herder continued to graze on private property without a specific law, the lawyer said, “If you go to somebody’s land and destroy his farmland, the criminal law will take care of you without any law banning open grazing. How? You can be charged for criminal trespassing and malicious destruction of property.
“People who plant their corn have property; it’s not just the land. Farm produce on the land is property and so when you destroy it, you can be charged for destroying it and then fined or sent to prison, and those instruments of destruction, i.e. cattle, can be confiscated.
“So, you all have it under the law. But for people who want a brand new law, a law may be made to specifically ban open grazing and provide offences and then stipulate penalties; and I think that will be good. So, for such persons, there may be the need to move from just an open declaration to having a specific law.
“In any case, law is dynamic; it evolves. So, if you have a social problem that is out to be regulated, regardless of the fact that in a diffused fashion, you may have regulations and laws here and there. There may be the need to consolidate and have one body of law that will regulate that criminal behaviour or social misbehaviour.”
Similarly, another lawyer, Mr Malachy Ugwummadu, said the affected states need to domesticate existing criminal legislation that completely prohibit or criminalise wanton, malicious and intentional destruction of the property of people.
He said, “So, you could see that it is not just about outlawing open grazing. It is about whether the activity of open grazing leads to criminal activities already criminalised and prohibited by existing criminal code act or criminal laws of the country. You cannot say that until you have an anti-grazing law.
“So, if herders are mobilising their cattle in destroying people’s farmlands or what have you, you don’t just have the anti-open grazing laws of those states to contend with. You also have the criminal laws in existence that prohibit the wanton, malicious and intentional destruction of property.”
Ugwummadu, who is a former President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, however, said it was desirable to have laws that would specifically deal with crimes arising from open grazing.
“But whether open grazing or not, you would be liable and responsible for the natural consequence of the action you take. The action of open grazing leading to destruction remains a crime under the laws of the country.
“And this argument has been made clearer by the very embarrassing position of the Attorney-General of the Federation, with due respect. The AGF failed to appreciate clearly that animals, which is the subject of this deliberation, do not enjoy human rights. What is contained in the Constitution are fundamental human rights, from Section 35 up till Section 44. Secondly, you cannot under the guise of fundamental rights perpetuate crime.”
PUNCH
