Clearing cobwebs in the herder crisis

Challenges and problems are solved when they are properly understood, defined, articulated and their roots traced to the right origins. The challenge to lives and property arising from herding animals, especially cows, did not arise in isolation. The challenge is a product of the state, individuals, institutions and organisations who are in a position to provide answers deliberately mis-defining, mis-describing and refusing to speak the truth, follow the rule of law and its due process. It is also a product of a certain belief that some set of Nigerians are above the law and they have the right to subject others to their whims and caprices.

The first distortion is an attempt to compare the business of herding cows in farmlands, forests, etc. to the legal and legitimate activities of Nigerians working or engaged in business in states outside of their states of origin. Let us take the example of a Yoruba or Igbo person working or engaged in business in a typical northern state. He rents a house to live in and if self-employed, rents premises for his business, pays tax to the authorities and lives in peace with his hosts and neighbours. In renting property, he acknowledges the title of the landlord as well as pays rents, which brings an economic benefit to the landlord.

For individuals who are well-to-do, they either buy land and build their own house or they buy completed houses and effect the legal change of title. The herder scenario is different. He does not rent or lease land; he makes no attempt to approach individual or community landowners. Also, he fails to ask for permission from the state to enter forest reserves or pay ground rents to any authority. He operates from the kind of mindset that facilitated colonialism, that some lands are bona vacantia, apparently without an owner or someone who can legally and legitimately claim ownership. As the Crown in the colonial set-up, the title reverts to the herdsmen.

Contrary to this herder mindset, there is no land in Nigeria without an owner or an authority to direct on its use. All lands are owned by individuals or communities. The fact that lands have been left fallow for some many years to grow into forests is not evidence that there is no owner. It is either evidence of communities’ understanding conservation and ecological principles or that they have more land than their immediate needs demand. If per chance, there is land that individuals or communities cannot lay a claim to, then the governor of the state is the authority responsible for authorising any one to use such land.

Recall that the Land Use Act clearly vests all land in a state in the governor who holds the same in trust for the population of the state. Furthermore, forest reserves are established by government and so many activities which are legally done in other forests are prohibited in them. Any use of the forest reserves and its resources can only be done with the permission and licence of the appropriate state authorities.

Against the foregoing background, herdsmen occupying and feeding their animals on lands which they have no legal claims over either as owners, tenants, lessees, etc. are trespassing on the properties of others. Trespass is actionable in law and the trespasser is duty bound to pay damages for trespass and be ordered by a court to cease and stop continuing the infringement on the rights of others. Any mention of an imaginary cattle route as the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), constantly talks about is founded on illegality. Nigerians need to be informed of the law that established these cattle routes.

Even if there was a colonial law or policy, such a law has been overtaken by the unambiguous provisions of the Land Use Act. Essentially, any individual, community or governor whose lands herders have been occupying without their consent and payment of the appropriate rent has the right to ask them to leave the land or call for negotiation for the payment of rent. If the negotiation fails, the trespassers must leave the land and the owners can consider legal action for trespass. This is Nigerian law and I will be pleased to hear if there is another version of the law other than this.

The second distortion is when we constantly label the challenge as a herder-farmer crisis. Including the settled farmers in the name of the crisis sends a wrong message that seeks to suggest that two persons or groups are fighting. There is a difference between two persons fighting and a case of aggravated assault by one party against another. What has been established by factual evidence so far is an aggressor pummelling his victims who are not ready to fight back but simply asking to be left alone.

But the aggressor must have their way. Before the last couple of weeks when eviction orders and threats of eviction arose, farmers who are working on lands, which they have legal and legitimate titles over, plant their crops and in the process, do not violate the rights of any person or group of persons under civil law. Planting and tending crops is not a crime against the state. The farmers simply farmed to earn a livelihood.

Enter the herdsman with his cattle and decides that the best feeds for his animals are the crops planted by the farmers. He lets his animals descend on the crops and lays the livelihood of another to waste. The farmer protests and the intruding herder draws his guns, kills, mains, rapes and razes settlements. The law enforcement agents are informed and expected to take action, but they keep mum. They fail to arrest, prosecute, and ensure that the offenders spend time in jail.

There are even reports of herdsmen boasting that they can kill, and no one can stop them. Indeed, they have been killing and getting away with it. Due to the itinerant nature of the herders, the farmers cannot sue and serve processes to effect civil rights claims. The whole scenario repudiates the legal expectation that where there is a right and wrongs are committed, remedies should follow. Thus, a clear case of impunity is established.

To complicate matters, proved allegations of kidnapping, killing, rape and all sorts of crimes followed the challenges related to land and herding. And the landowners who committed no crime by being in their homes are expected to put their hands in the air while these crimes go on daily with the security agencies looking the other way. Self-preservation is the first responsibility of any human being or specie of humanity and the law establishes a right to self-defence.

Thus, the security threats bordering on ethnic misunderstandings arising from the herder crisis can only be resolved by the due process of law founded on the truth and justice. No one has a right to make others uncomfortable. The arrogance of seeking to conquer, dominate and take over the lands and appurtenances of others must be resisted by all free men and women.

Latest Blog Articles

Clearing cobwebs in the herder crisis

Blog