IN a bid to curtail the spate of bloodletting across the country which was rampant due to the rising incidence of farmers/ herders clashes in recent years, particularly during the administration of former President Buhari, the federal government initiated some odd policies like the re-introduction of Pastoral routes and the Rural Grazing Areas( RUGA).
While the idea of the pastoral routes was rejected because it was a colonial policy that was no longer tenable in modern Nigeria, the RUGA initiative was opposed by the people due to the fact that herders are private businesses individuals and it is an aberration for the government to be involved in securing landed properties for private businesses owners.
Though the efforts to introduce the RUGA programme generated a lot of controversy between the federal and state governments, the popular consensus on how to solve the menace orchestrated by the killing of farmers by gun welding herdsmen was the adoption of ranching which is the modern method of breeding cattle.
Ranching was accepted by the state governments based on the fact that animals in ranches are more healthy and ranching causes less agriculture related pollution than industrial livestock farming. In most cases too, properties utilized for ranching are often given low or no property tax status, for livestock and forestry activities.
The need to curb the rising cases of destruction of farm crops and the killing/ maiming of farmers by marauding herdsmen, most state governments in Nigeria including Delta State, initiated the Anti-graft open grazing law. The Delta State Livestock Breeding, Rearing and Marketing Regulations law was signed by the former Governor, Sen. Ifeanyi Okowa in September, 2021. The law was meant to bring peace, development and economic enhancement to residents of the state whether indigene or non-indigene, but unfortunately the problem of farmers/ herders clashes have continued unabated due to lack of enforcement of the law.
Piqued by the non- enforcement of the law, the State House of Assembly, gave a 17- day ultimatum to the management of the 25 Local Government Areas in the state to constitute committees to enforce the law, noting the law was for peace, order and good governance. The enforcement committee, which should consist of critical stakeholders including the security agencies, according to the House of Assembly, should make grazing fields available for herders on lease, arrest any cattle found grazing openly and impose appropriate fines as spelt out in the law.
While we are in support of the lawmakers in their drive to ensure the enforcement of the law, we commend the efforts of some local government authorities that have put machineries in motion for the enforcement of the law. This is because the proper implementation of the law will help to avert the incidence of killing, maiming and raping of farmers, sustain peaceful coexistence, as well as enhance food security.
As much as the step taken by the House of Assembly looks laudable, there seem to be an impediment in effecting the directives due to the nonchalant attitude of security agencies to cooperate with the local governments in enforcing the law. The lack of interest by the security agencies in the enforcement of the law probably due to the federal government position on anti- open grazing law, considering the fact that national security is on the exclusive list, poses a serious challenge to effective implementation of the law.
We, therefore, advocate for an alternative security arrangement that would be under the control of the state government to work in synergy with the local government authorities to ensure full implementation of the law. The government should consider the establishment of forest guards for the purpose of making sure that the local government authorities will not have security challenges in the course of enforcing the anti- open grazing law in the state.
