Herders’ rights advocates

Emeka OMEIHE

 

The position of the presidency on the 12-point resolution by southern governors elevated to the fore, government’s disposition on the festering clashes between herders’ and farmers. But more fundamentally, it gave out the primacy of herders’ welfare over other burning national issues in the overall calculations of the Buhari administration.

Southern governors cutting across party lines had during their epochal meeting at Asaba, Delta State taken far-reaching decisions which if seriously and honestly addressed would offer lasting solutions to some of the debilitating national challenges that had set the country on edge. Among others, these included: a ban on open grazing of cattle across Southern Nigeria; restructuring of the country to ensure true federalism leading to the evolution of state police, review of the revenue allocation formula and all appointments into federal agencies including the security agencies in keeping with the federal character principle.

But what caught the attention of the Buhari government in all those resolutions was just the ban on open grazing across Southern Nigeria. It was obviously the only thing of interest to the government given the prime attention it paid to it and the dismissive manner it handled others.  Others issues just paled into insignificance.

In a statement, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu said the ban was of questionable legality “given the constitutional right of all Nigerians to enjoy the same right and freedoms within every one of our 36 states (and FCT) regardless of the sates of their birth or residence”. He dismissed other resolutions as “acts of politicking”.

Even on the ranching alternative proffered by the governors, the statement strove to get the public to believe that the idea was not original to them. It claimed President Buhari had In April signed off on the back of a report by the Minister of Agriculture, Sabo Nanono a number of measures to end the frequent skirmishes between herders and farmers among which ranching and the revival of grazing reserves featured prominently. The government further claimed it would soon embark on “rehabilitation of grazing reserves in the states, starting with those that are truly committed to the solution and compliant with stated requirements”.

The government accused the governors of just demonstrating power without offering solutions to the herders and farmers clashes. This accusation is a contradiction of sorts. Having accepted ranching which formed one of the governors’ recommendations, the presidency cannot successfully sustain the claim that there was no solution to the herders’ and farmers’ clashes in the recommendations of the governors.

Their solution is ranching and they said so unambiguously. It is a different thing altogether if they did not provide any timeline for its actualization. That may have stemmed from the reasoning that cattle rearing business engagement is essentially private. States and individuals are at liberty to approach it in their own ways. The governors were concerned with the imperative of ending recurring clashes between herders and farmers that are fuelled by the outdated open grazing practice. And they found solution in ranching. What other solution does the president expect of them?

The only difference between the measures the president was said to have endorsed prior to the governors’ resolutions was the rehabilitation of grazing reserves. Even then, all these measures have been in the public space ever since. Ranching is not original to the Buhari regime. As a matter of fact, his government had overtime shown strong aversion to it as evident from other contraptions it floated on the debilitating crisis that met stiff opposition across the country. But for opposition, we would by now be contending with the challenges of grazing routes, RUGA et al.

It is also amazing that the presidency could not find any merit in restructuring, the nagging need for quick intervention to ensure true federalism and reflect the federal character principle in the conduct of its affair. It found nothing of value in the skewed appointments into federal agencies including the security arm that is dominated by people from a section of the country in utter defiance of our laws. The government found nothing untoward in extant situation in which the Federal Character Commission FCC charged with ensuring equity and fairness in all federal appointments, is now in defiance of its mandate through its composition.

When sometime last year, a new chairman was appointed for that agency, observations were made on the anomalous situation the agency was embroiled given that both the incoming chairman and the sitting secretary are  both from the north in defiance of subsisting tradition. The excuse the government offered then was that the tenure of the secretary would soon expire and the anomaly would then be rectified. The narrative now is that that tenure had since expired with the incumbent confirmed for another four years.

These are fundamental breaches of our constitution as they relate to the federal character principle. What remains of the federal character principle if the very agency that should ensure its implementation to the letters is in utter breach of it in the appointment of its principal officers? That is how bad the situation is. And we are being made to believe that the governors were merely demonstrating power without offering solutions.

On the contrary, it is the presidency that is demonstrating power by refusing to act on the prevailing feelings and sensibilities on what needed to be done to get the country out of the precipice into which it is inevitably headed. The recommendations of the governors contain solutions to the country’s challenges. The snag has been lack of sincerity of purpose and reluctance or refusal to muster the political will to do what is right at the federal level.

It is hard to fathom how we can make substantial progress when government policies and programmes are colored by sectional, ethnic and religious considerations. National progress will remain a tall order when public officials are quick to deceive the country by inventing misplaced and skewed comparisons. That was the exact situation when the Attorney General of the federation, Abubakar Malami sought to compare the ban on open grazing with that on spare parts business.

Not minding the aspersions that comparison cast on a section of the country, it is obvious that the two issues stand out on account of their dissimilarities. In other words, they can only be compared in terms of their dissimilarities. But nothing illustrates these differences more poignantly than a post this writer came across in the social media.

A spare parts trader in Kano central market, James Okafor (not real names) had in reaction to the comparison said he rented his shop paid the necessary fees to the landlord and regularly pays his rent. He also pays all manner of rates in the market including sanitation fees, charges for offloading his wares and tax to the state government. He also rented a living accommodation, pays all the necessary bills and lives there based on the contract he had with his landlord.

He said when he has enough money to own a house in Kano, he would apply to the government for approval after meeting all the conditions. Okafor just stopped at that. His message is not lost in the comparison between herders and spare parts traders. The spare parts trader operates within the law while herders outside of it. They grab lands belonging to other people for their business with impunity. They obey no known laws even as their business had become a source of threat to the lives of their host communities. That says it all.

The same misplaced comparison featured when Malami claimed the ban infringed on the rights of herders to freedom of movement. Surprisingly also, the presidency bought that dummy. Their inability to draw a line between human rights and animal rights is at the centre of the feeling that parochial interests are behind it all. Nobody banned herders from their rights to free movement within the ambit of the law but cattle.

from Latest Nigeria News, Nigerian Newspapers, Politics https://ift.tt/34B2NHu
via IFTTT