By Nathaniel Zaccheaus, Abuja
The Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum (SMBLF) has issued a warning to the Federal Government against using its proposed New National Livestock Policy to acquire ancestral lands in the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria for ranching.
The forum described the proposed pilot ranching programme as a potential land-grabbing exercise and vowed to resist any attempt to seize community lands under the guise of livestock development.
In a statement on Wednesday, the leaders demanded full disclosure of the proposed policy, including the locations, size and ownership arrangements of the ranches, warning that no community should be compelled to surrender its ancestral land without its consent.
The statement was signed by the forum’s Chairman and Leader of Afenifere, HRM Oba Oladipo Olaitan; President of the Middle Belt Forum, Dr Bitrus Pogu; President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, Senator John Azuta-Mbata; and National Chairman of PANDEF, Ambassador Godknows Igali.
The SMBLF said the proposed pilot areas include Nasarawa, Plateau, Benue, Southern Kaduna, Taraba, and the Federal Capital Territory, expressing concern over what it described as the policy’s concentration in largely Middle Belt locations.
The leaders questioned why the proposed ranching initiative was being concentrated in the region despite what they described as the availability of vast expanses of sparsely populated land in parts of the far North.
They warned that acceptance of the pilot scheme could pave the way for its eventual expansion into other parts of the country, particularly Southern states.
The forum stressed that it was not opposed to modern livestock production, ranching or the development of Nigeria’s livestock value chain.
Its objection, however, was to what it described as the “opaque, coercive and discriminatory” manner in which the policy was being pursued.
The leaders warned that government policy must not be used to confer exclusive advantages on nomadic pastoralists or any ethnic group at the expense of indigenous communities.
“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 leaders said.
*Demand transparency, community consent before ranching land acquisition
The SMBLF demanded that the Federal Government disclose the full details of the proposed ranching programme before implementation.
Specifically, the leaders demanded information on the proposed locations and sizes of the ranches, the legal instruments to be used to acquire the land, ownership structures, intended beneficiaries, security implications, and sources of funding.
They also demanded guarantees protecting the rights and interests of communities whose lands could be affected by the programme.
According to the forum, communities must have a decisive say in any proposal that involves the acquisition or allocation of their ancestral lands.
The leaders aligned themselves with the Middle Belt Forum, which had earlier rejected the proposed scheme.
They urged Southern state governments and communities to prepare against any attempt to extend the policy to their territories.
The forum warned the Federal Government against relying on the Land Use Act of 1978 to justify what it described as the arbitrary acquisition of community lands.
The leaders argued that the law recognised customary rights of occupancy and contained safeguards relating to agricultural and community lands.
They maintained that ranching was fundamentally an economic activity that could be privately driven, arguing that compulsory acquisition of land for the benefit of specific economic actors could not automatically be justified as being in the overriding public interest.
The SMBLF further expressed concern that the proposed policy could ultimately create permanent settlement zones for nomadic Fulani herders.
It alleged that years of violent clashes involving some pastoralist groups had resulted in the displacement of communities and occupation of large areas of land across parts of the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria.
The leaders argued that communities that had suffered displacement and violence could not reasonably be expected to surrender additional ancestral lands as part of a government-backed settlement arrangement.
*SMBLF warns against repeat of RUGA, cattle colony controversies
The forum recalled the controversy surrounding the Rural Grazing Area (RUGA) initiative and cattle colony proposals, saying Nigerians had previously rejected the schemes over concerns about land ownership, security and possible demographic restructuring.
The leaders warned that the Federal Government must not attempt to reintroduce similar arrangements under a different policy name.
They insisted that any livestock development programme must respect constitutional rights, community interests and the principle of voluntary participation.
The SMBLF also raised questions over the citizenship status of some nomadic pastoralists, arguing that the government must resolve such issues before contemplating the allocation of large areas of ancestral land under state protection.
The leaders said they would not accept any policy that could permanently alter the ownership or demographic character of communities without their consent.
The forum warned that it would resist every attempt to acquire community lands under the guise of livestock development.
It called on Middle Belt and Southern communities to remain vigilant. It urged state governments to closely scrutinise any federal proposal involving the acquisition or allocation of land within their territories.
The leaders maintained that until the Federal Government provides satisfactory answers to the questions surrounding the proposed ranching scheme and guarantees the protection of affected communities, the SMBLF would reject the initiative.
The forum said the Federal Government could pursue livestock development without creating fresh disputes over land ownership, insisting that ranching and agricultural modernisation must be based on transparency, legality, private investment and the consent of communities whose lands are involved.
It warned that any attempt to proceed without addressing the concerns raised could deepen existing mistrust over land, security and pastoralism across the country.
