By Tonnie Iredia
The Nigerian Senate elevated its leadership profile in the country last week when it opted to pass the second reading of a bill which seeks to ban open grazing and establish ranches for herders in the country. The bill was passed by a clear majority of the senators when their President, Godswill Akpabio, put it to vote.
All well-meaning citizens ought to commend the senate on the development which no doubt represents the first major pan-Nigeria attempt to address the interminable conflict between farmers and herders in the country. A few legislators who spoke against the bill were able to fulfil the democratic precept that although the majority must have its way, the minority must also have its say.It makes ample sense to imagine that this is solution-time for the problem as the present administration positions itself to fill governance gaps which its predecessor neglected to accomplish from 2015 to 2023.The anti-open grazing policy ought to be at the front burner of issues requiring the attention of Tinubu’s government because of the capacity of the subject to massively disrupt national integration.
Government needs to be
sensitive to the ease with which the centrifugal factors of heterogeneous
societies can dismember Nigeria. Never again should our politicians play
politics with boiling issues such as ethnicity and religion. No one should
support or oppose a destructive issue such as open grazing just to satisfy the
emotions of their constituents.
Legislators have a primary responsibility to be on the same page with their constituents, but they must also be ready to give way where the contending perspectives may not be in the overall interest of society. Thus, political leaders should not stand rigidly behind primordial issues just to please their local segment of citizens. Instead, leaders must be flexible enough to embrace a broader perspective when it is appropriate.
During
the political campaigns leading to the Second Republic, Alhaji Shehu Shagari
originally a senatorial aspirant decided to, in line with the choice of his
constituents, publicly support population as a basis for revenue allocation;
but when destiny pushed him to become a presidential candidate, he became an
astute advocate for derivation because the entire nation had become his
constituency.
It is patently wrong for leaders to use freedom of
movement in our constitution to support open grazing without remembering that
the freedom granted by the constitution does not extend to the discretion to
commit crime. Every freedom is expected to be enjoyed responsibly without
disrupting the freedom of other people. Accordingly, herders or any other group
can move freely nationwide but cannot in the process destroy other people’s businesses.
More importantly, every citizen must realize that the same constitution
validates any law which curtails freedom in the interest of the general public.
Indeed, Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 specifically provides that
a law can validly curtail any person’s freedom “for the purpose of protecting
the rights and freedom of other persons.”
What this suggests is that there
comes a time where certain groups may lose their freedom for the general good.
For those of us in the media and communication sector, the law of defamation
effectively stops us from defaming any person on the ground that we have
freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one in Nigeria is more discriminated
against than media professionals because even when they publish the truth about
leaders, they are arrested by law enforcement agencies and detained without
trial. Yet, Section 22 of our constitution mandates the media to make
government accountable to the people. In line with the current anti-open
grazing posture, the senate should emulate Malawi, Ghana and others to enact
laws stopping agencies of government from undue harassment of media
professionals in Nigeria.
A major reason we expect our
legislators to be more dynamic in deploying the instrumentality of law to
correct several abuses is because much is expected from whom much is given.
With all the allowances that our legislators allegedly commandeer, they must be
forthcoming in using law to develop our democracy. An APC Senator, Titus Zam,
Benue (North-West) who moved the discussions on the anti-open grazing bill
accepted this much when he said: "the Senate cannot afford to look on while the
country burns into ashes as a result of violent clashes between sedentary
farmers and nomadic herders. "Zam insists that to do otherwise would amount to
abdication of statutory and leadership responsibilities by legislators who are
prime stakeholders in the Nigeria project and elected representatives of the
people.
Certainly, the adverse effects
of open grazing far outweigh its benefits. Cattle rearing does not only degrade
the environment, it also depletes the soil and forests, just as it pollutes
clean water. It provokes clashes with other groups, disrupts agriculture and
displaces farmers thereby contributing largely to food insecurity. But the most
serious effect as earlier stated is the daily killings of citizens which no one
has been able to halt for an entire decade. The need to call attention to the
situation is more understood when it is realized that for several centuries, cattle
herders and other farmers had lived peacefully in the same communities. History
even records circumstances where herders voluntarily compensated farmers whose
crops were destroyed by their cattle making it obvious that regulation of the
subject is overdue.
The way forward is to endeavour to comprehend how other countries have handled the subject which has overwhelmed Nigeria. Here, we must return to the sermon of best practices and global realities which our nation often conveniently ignores. We cannot continue to talk about old grazing routes the way our politicians who cherish election rigging hang-on to analogue electoral processes.
The popular view is that
cattle ranching can drastically reduce the negative effects of open grazing
yet, no one seems ready to embrace it. In 2019, Nigeria launched a ten-year
National Livestock Transformation Plan that can help to stop the indiscriminate
movement of cattle and reduce the nation’s existential herder-farmer conflict.
The plan like some other public policies died on arrival with many people
arguing against government’s involvement in the subject which they categorized
as essentially a private enterprise.
If the truth must be told, the
lack of political will to sustain the plan is an error of judgment. Government
cannot pretend that its interest was really dissuaded by the private enterprise
criticism. Politicians who always support open grazing should not restrict
their support to mere talks, they should help to organize herders to embrace
the system and lobby governments and private donors to see to the realization
of ranching. But then, how can our government that subsidizes pilgrimages
and occasionally aids private airlines as well as failed banks not do same for
ranching? It can however not be a burden for the federal government alone.
States with many herders should be more forthcoming on the subject.
It is obvious that the real
problem is not land but funds and structures that can sustain the business.
Government needs to intervene even if it is in the form of loans. To prevent
further conflicts between ranchers and wolves and create a conducive
environment for peace, the United States government spent huge sums in 2023, to
help ranchers in locations such as Colorado to “put up fences, remove carcasses
from landscapes and hire range riders to watch herds more closely.” Every
government ought to secure its nation from all types of challenges especially
those of intractable nature. This is why we praise the positive take-off stance
of the anti-open grazing bill in Nigeria and the progress so far recorded which
shows it is a popular bill.
The senate should keep up the momentum and ensure
that the debate does not become that of “they versus us” where one group
opposes whatever the other appears to support. The few law-makers who spoke
against the bill must not see themselves as losers because the real
significance of their contribution lies in their desire to canvass the other
dimension of the subject. But more importantly, it is time for our legislators
to articulate a robust solution for a problem that has refused to go. If they
fail to seize the golden opportunity to make history, they will end up in
boring sessions everyday observing a minute silence for the dead; and thereby
engaging in legislation by condolence.
*Dr. Iredia is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment