Livestock Plan doomed as more stakeholders reject policy

…they want to bring Fulani across West Africa to take over Nigeria — Tola Adeniyi

The National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) inaugurated on September 10 in Adamawa by Nigeria’s vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo is already marred by controversy, just as Ruga before it, as suspicion over its real intent continues, and several of those initially part of it are pulling out.

A visibly subdued Osinbajo had while inaugurating the programme at the Gongoshi Grazing Reserve in Mayo-Belwa Local Government Area, noted that it was designed to run from 2019-2028 as part of Federal Government’s initiative in collaboration with States under the auspices of the National Economic Council (NEC).

He had noted that the plan targeted at supporting the development of Nigeria’s livestock sector, is to be implemented in seven pilot states of Adamawa, Benue, Kaduna, Plateau, Nasarawa, Taraba and Zamfara, emphasising for the umpteenth time, that the federal government doesn’t intend to force it on anybody.

“In this plan the State governments or private investors provide the land, the federal government does not and will not take any land from a State or local government. Any participating state will provide the land as its own contribution to the project,” he has said, arguing that the plan would bring an end to ‘farmers-herders clashes.’

But while he spoke, more than a handful of the indigenous population of the local government protested with placards rejecting what they said is an attempt to take over their lands. The protesters, under the platform of Numan Federation, almost disrupted the ceremony but for the intervention of security operatives. They had demanded inclusion of piggery in the plan to erase suspicion.

Suspicion has continued to trail it just as it did with grazing reserves, cattle colony, Ruga and such other ideas muted in the past seeking essentially to create settlements for Fulani herders in various states of the federation. South East governors have officially rejected it, while a number of their counterparts in the South West and South South have indicated they will toe same line.

When the President Muhammadu Buhari government announced its Ruga plan a few months ago, it caused uproar. Governors of the South and parts of the Middle Belt rejected it in unison.

It was, in many people’s opinion, a poorly conceived idea which sought to bypass state governments who have jurisdiction over land. Indeed, the government itself through a statement by presidential spokesperson, Garba Shehu, admitted gazetting lands in all states for the settlements – an unlawful move – while officials of the Ministry of Agriculture had proceeded to appropriate lands in Benue State.

The outrage that followed, however, forced the government to backtrack and announce it was suspending Ruga, preferring subsequently to adopt NLTP. A number of Northern states, including Kano, Zamfara, Niger and a few others, however had insisted on proceeding with the Ruga settlements, regardless.

As opposed to Ruga which basically seeks to settle herders as, perhaps, indigenous population in all the states of the federation – a plan many saw as brazen land grab and attempt to “Fulanise” the country – NLTP is supposed to be a more holistic approach that encompasses not just cattle grazing, but also other forms of animal rearing, as well as compensate communities displaced by attacks by militant herdsmen. Or, at least, so the government had claimed.

The vice president had emphasised during the inauguration that it was not Ruga and that any participating state will determine its own model.

“I wish to emphasise that this is not RUGA, because the idea of RUGA settlements launched by the Ministry of Agriculture created a problem when it was perceived as a plan to seize land to create settlements for herders.”

Days afterwards, governors of the 19 Northern States met in Kaduna and came up with a resolution to adopt the plan, in a communique read by Plateau State governor, Simon Lalong. According to them, it defined the pathway for modernising pastoral activities.

However, recent events are increasingly raising suspicion over the true intent and details of the plan, prompting renewed calls for its rejection by various stakeholders, including the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum.

The plan is said to be ostensibly built on six key pillars: economic investment, conflict resolution, law and order, humanitarian relief, information education and strategic communication and other issues. But as things stand, the complete details of what it encompasses is said to be unknown still. The government is said to be working on the final document, even after its official inauguration.

“It is just Ruga in another name; it’s Ruga baptised. Obviously, it’s a programme designed as a deception. The intention is to take attention away from the ill intentioned Ruga programme,” noted Chief Okey Okoroji, lawyer and chieftain of the All Progressive Grand Alliance.

“It’s a programme designed to deceive people into accepting that which they have rejected, which is Ruga. Nigerians should be very vigilant and not accept that policy because it’s not ultimately in the interest of Nigeria. It is meant to create colonies and alter the demographics of Southern Nigeria by importation of non Nigerians to Nigeria. It is unacceptable.”

During an interface between officials of the ministry of agriculture and stakeholders in Benue State in August, which was aimed at building trust, the stakeholders alleged that from what they saw of the plan, it was yet Ruga and rejected it.

The stakeholders, who were drawn from different fields, including the church, the academia, traditional institution, socio-cultural and civil society organisations, particularly pointed out that the plan was only about cattle and said nothing about other animals or about compensating displaced communities.

The Tor Lobi, Chief Moses Anagende and Tor Kwande, Chief Ambrose Iyortyer, who spoke for traditional rulers, had wondered why the Federal Government was only concerned about settling herdsmen while paying no attention to people displaced from their homes.

Professor Amstrong Adejo of the Benue State University who spoke for the academia had also made the same point, noting that the plan, although should be about livestock, is particular about cows. It was therefore, not surprising that when the Northern governors adopted the plan a month afterwards in September, Benue differed.

The state’s deputy governor, Benson Abuonu, who stood in for Governor Samuel Ortom, had insisted that the state government would study the plan to ensure that it conformed to its anti-open grazing law.

“There are seven states at the pilot stage but with regards to Benue, whatever is going to happen in this area of animal husbandry that thing has to be in conformity with the local laws of Benue that is in existence,” he had said.

A fortnight ago, the National Economic Council presided over by Osinbajo proposed a budget of N100billion for the plan. Ebonyi State governor, Dave Umahi who chaired the NLTP sub-committee had made the presentation. He had, like the vice president, noted that contrary to the widely held belief, the plan was not about cows alone but had three planks, including care for persons displaced by farmers/herders’ crisis and education programmes.

But it soon became obvious that Umahi and other governors were not on the same page. A few days afterwards, Bauchi State governor, Bala Mohammed, argued on Channels TV that Fulani herdsmen from Chad, Niger and other neighbouring countries will benefit from the plan, indicating perhaps that contrary to Osinbajo and Umahi’s claims, it is intended to cater to the Fulani, just like Ruga.

Mohammed had insisted that since the herdsmen are nomadic, it would be inappropriate to deprive them from benefitting from the livestock plan just because they are not from Nigeria.

“I think there is a lot of mistrust and misconception as regards the Fulani man. The Fulani man is a global or African person. He moves from The Gambia to Senegal and his nationality is Fulani,” he had said. “We cannot just close our borders and say the Fulani man is just a Nigerian.”

The governor’s submission was a slap on the wrist, confirmation for many, of what they have always suspected.

“We grew up to know something called NEPA and they have changed its name several times, but it is still NEPA,” said Chief Tola Adeniyi, veteran columnist and former MD of the Daily Times of Nigeria.

“So, whether they call it Ruga or whatever, it is still a ploy, as confirmed by the governor of Bauchi State, to bring Fulani from all over West Africa to come and take over Nigeria.”

Chief Adeniyi who is also a member of Yoruba Summit Group further argued that, “It is still Ruga, whether they call it livestock plan or whatever. The agenda is to take over people’s ancestral lands and give to foreigners.”

The Bauchi governor’s assertions had also formed the basis for the rejection of the plan by the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum, which rose from a meeting in Abuja on Wednesday to dismiss it as subterfuge.

“Meeting restates the rejection of SMBLF to the use of the collective resources of Nigerians to convert herdsmen, majority of who are non-Nigerians, from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles while doing their private business that has nothing to do with the rest of us beyond being their market.

“It is akin to government making budgetary allocations to Coca Cola to produce drinks to sell to Nigerians,” a statement by Yinka Odumakin for the South West, Prof. Chigozie Ogbu for the South East, Senator Bassey Henshaw for South South and Dr Isuwa Dogo for the Middle Belt, read.

“There is the issue of citizenship which the un-thoughtful expose of Bauchi Governor, Bala Mohammed that Fulanis from all over Africa are going to benefit from the scheme…

“Why are we closing our border with Benin Republic where there are many people of Yoruba origin there? Are Igbo who are aborigines in Haiti to come to Nigeria without consular services? What is the contribution of those Fulani imports to the development of Nigeria to come and live on our resources when our citizens are the poorest on earth? Why is it difficult to apply common sense in our inter-ethnic relations in Nigeria?” the meeting asked.

“The above shows clearly that NLTP will only escalate the clashes between the indigenous communities and cattle settlers as experiences in Southern and Middle Belt areas of Nigeria have shown that the Fulani imports do not assimilate into the ways of lives of Nigerians in those parts of the country where they reside. They live apart from the locals and set up communities with alien culture that disrupts the cultural flow of the indigenes.

“The subterfuge of the whole deal is exposed in that while government officials deceive Nigerians that the plan will stop open grazing for ranching, option 1 in it provides for the establishment of corridors for migrant cattle with feeding and watering points along the routes. This is as stark as the lie that “livestock” includes other sources of meat. The entire plan is about cattle and herdsmen.”

Last week, Umahi, through his spokesperson, Emma Uzor, restated the stance of South East governors that the zone will not participate in the plan, while noting still that it was different from Ruga. However, when BusinessHallmark contacted him to inquire if he had the details of the plan to be sure it was different, he declined comment.

Many continue to wonder why animal husbandry should be the business of federal government.

“Livestock should not be a Federal government project,” Chief Adeniyi argued. “Let every state and local government do their livestock. What is the business of federal government with livestock? If they should have anything to do with livestock, it should only be at the level of policy.”

For Okoroji, what is certain at the end of the day, is that the federal government cannot force such plan on states that are not willing unless it wants to resort to lawlessness.

“The point is that the federal government doesn’t have the power to encroach into the jurisdictional areas of a state governor. All the lands within a state are under the control of the state government. So, they will need state approval for acquisition of land for that purpose. Any forceful acquisition will be a violation of the law, not just the land use act, but the constitution. The land use act is part of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria.”