The Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum (SMBLF) has expressed concern over what it called “the audacious attempt by the Federal Government to take over lands belonging to ethnic communities in the Middle Belt under a spurious pilot scheme” being introduced in the name of a New National Livestock Policy.
It said the proposed areas included Nasarawa, Plateau, Benue, Southern Kaduna, Taraba and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
In a statement issued on Wednesday by Oba Oladipo Olaitan, Leader, Afenifere and Chairman, SMBLF; Dr Bitrus Pogu, President, Middle Belt Forum; Senator John Azuta-Mbata, President-General, Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide; and Ambassador Godknows Igali, National Chairman, PANDEF, the forum said, “It is striking that this experiment is being concentrated almost entirely in the Middle Belt, despite the vast expanses of sparsely populated and unused land available in many parts of the far North, where Fulani Emirs dominate most of the lands.”
It noted that the scheme was being presented as a pilot, saying that if it was not firmly opposed by the communities whose lands were being short-changed, it would be expanded to other parts of the country, including the Southern states.
The SMBLF stated that it was not opposed to modern livestock production, ranching or the development of the livestock value chain, explaining that what it rejected was the “opaque, coercive and discriminatory manner” in which the policy was being pursued to the exclusive advantage of nomadic Fulani herdsmen.
“The SMBLF stands firmly with the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), which has already rejected the scheme. We also call on communities and governments of the Southern State to stand ready to reject the policy,” the statement explained.
It added, “The Federal Government must be reminded that the Land Use Act of 1978 is not a licence for arbitrary land grabbing. It vests rural land in Local Governments, recognises customary rights of occupancy, and allows revocation only for overriding public interest. It also protects agricultural land, including fallow land, as continuing community property.”
The forum said ranching was an economic enterprise that was privately driven, lamenting that the government could not disguise compulsory land acquisition for specific economic actors as being in the public interest.
The SMBLF suspected that the true aim of the policy was the creation of permanent settlement zones for nomadic Fulani herdsmen, whose violent activities over the years have contributed to the capture and occupation of thousands of square kilometres of land across the Middle Belt and even parts of the Southern states.
Apart from the genocide they have been accused of carrying out in the Middle Belt, the statement explained that they had rendered millions homeless and could not be handed the lands of their victims as a reward for their heinous crimes.
The statement said, “It is also a matter of record that some of these nomadic pastoralists are not Nigerian citizens. Any policy that ignores these realities while allocating vast ancestral lands to them under state protection is unacceptable to the indigenous people of the Middle Belt and the South.”
It stated that similar attempts had been seen before under different names, including the rejected RUGA and Cattle Colony proposals, which Nigerians resisted because of their implications for land ownership and demographic restructuring.
“The SMBLF will not accept such a policy. We warn the Federal Government that the Middle Belt and the South are not dumping grounds for controversial land policies. Our lands belong to our communities that depend on them for farming, homes, livelihoods and survival,” the statement observed.
It added, “If this policy must stand, we demand full disclosure of the proposed ranching sites, the legal instruments for their acquisition, the ownership structure, security concerns, the beneficiaries, the size of the lands involved and the source of funding.”
The forum said that until these questions were answered transparently and the rights of affected communities were fully protected, the SMBLF rejected the proposed ranching scheme in the Middle Belt and the South, saying that it would resist every attempt to seize community lands under the guise of livestock development.
