The herdsmen narrative

The late politician and philanthropist, Moshood Abiola, it was who popularised a Yoruba adage that says something like: “The fact that I want to eat beef does not mean I should prostrate to the cow”. The wisdom in that statement is that certain things are inexcusable, no matter the circumstances.

That adage comes to mind as one tries to understand the current issue of killings and destruction of rural farming communities by alleged herdsmen. What used to be isolated reports of incidents in the past have suddenly become so recurring and one of the most trending news reports in the last few months in Nigeria.

 The most notorious of the incidents was in Agatu, Benue State and left a yet indeterminable number of citizens dead. While we were still chewing on that and government pussy footed, the problem exacerbated with the band of marauders spreading southwards, killing citizens and destroying local communities and settlements. These have happened in circumstances that raise questions as to the nature, quantum and source of weapons they have deployed in the dastardly acts. What is more baffling is how such criminals disappear into nothingness after committing the atrocities, if, as it is claimed, they are herdsmen. Pray, how do they escape with their herds without trail? Or, do they magically disappear like some alien creatures from Mars?

 It is clear that by failing to act fast and decisively against these criminals, the Nigerian state becomes complicit and emboldens those criminals and others of their ilk. It is to our shame as a country that after the Agatu killings, nobody has been arrested or prosecuted, the same thing with the more recent killings especially in Nimbo, Uzo-Uwani in Enugu State. And that is the least we can do to the memory of those killed. It is bad enough that the state failed to protect its citizens from death. It deepens the affront and pain when nobody is brought to justice on account of the breach of the right to life.

 It is imperative to unravel the crisis by identifying those behind the bloodletting. The common, single and simplistic narrative is to refer to the criminals as “Fulani herdsmen”. With that single description, many discussants can easily fill in the gaps, based on their prejudices, experiences and interests. The most recurrent narratives have resorted to highlighting our natural national fault lines of ethnicity and religion. By stressing the presumed ethnicity and religion of the criminals, we stoke anger against that ethnic group and religion and we also put pressure on every member of that ethnicity and religion to either feel communally guilty or vicariously liable for the deaths. We equally expect each one of them to step out and “do something” or “say something” to show remorse or condemnation. But that also means that many people of that ethnicity and religion also feel obliged to stand up or speak out in defence of their groups as a default response.

 It is all so easy to describe what is happening as ethnic and religious-motivated. In fact, I have even heard of accusations of ethnic and religious cleansing. After all, cattle rearing in Nigeria, especially the itinerant method, is, almost the exclusive preserve of the Fulani. Most Fulani are also Muslims. And the locations of the attacks on sedentary communities have almost completely been non-Fulani and majority Christian settlements.

 With such simplistic interpretation as above, we miss the opportunity for deeper construction of the why and how of the attacks. If indeed the attacks are carried out by herdsmen, what kind of weapons have the criminals been using? Has any forensic examination been made of the tell-tale evidence gathered from the crime scenes such as discharged bullets and their pellets to identify the time and trace the source? What is the pattern of movement? Where do they disappear to with their cattle? And this is why many people believe the criminals cannot be the same as the herdsmen we see every day carrying nothing more than bows, arrows and machetes. Isn’t there a possibility that a more deadly set of criminals may be behind this? This is one lead we expect the security operatives to investigate further. If in fact the killings have been caused by the regular herdsmen we know of, then the security agencies would be guilty of ineptitude in preventing or unravelling the crimes.

 Perhaps, we need to unravel what has suddenly happened to the previously peaceful coexistence between the itinerant herdsmen and their host, sedentary communities. No doubt, our negative and exclusion politics has a role to play in making each ethno-religious group suspicious of the other.

 The central question however is how best the herdsmen can carry on with their business without constituting nuisance to other citizens? For starters, it is not just reasonable to accept that shepherds should move about with their cattle across towns, cities and states without any form of rules or restrictions. Why is it acceptable to see cattle in completely built-up areas of cities such as Abuja in such a manner as to hold up vehicular traffic? The cattle are even found in supposedly protected and restricted areas of our cities. More than 10 years ago, an early morning international flight into Port Harcourt Airport ran into a herd of cattle grazing within the areas abutting the runways. That was certainly an avoidable embarrassment for the country. I doubt if anybody was sanctioned for this.

 Many propositions have been made as to the best way of addressing the problem. There is no doubt that we are a beef-loving country, so we would do a lot to ensure the continued existence of the meat for consumption. But as the adage quoted earlier says, we cannot therefore begin to show more respect to cattle (and their herdsmen) to the detriment of the rest of us. It is time to put in place regulations about the movement and control of cattle. Such regulations being suggested include the creation of grazing areas and routes. This is taking into account the fact that the most popular means of cattle rearing in Nigeria is the itinerant method. But that seems to be the major source of the present problem. Land ownership and access remain a main reason for conflict across Nigeria.

 Even neighbouring and villages and families who share the same ethnicity, culture and religion have so easily turned against each other in fight to access or keep land. For instance, in the last two weeks, Cross River State has recorded about 10 deaths in two community clashes: Onyadama and Inyima in Obubra and Yakurr local government areas as well as Ukpe, Okpagada and Mgbagede in Ogoja Local Government Area. There is no doubt that those communities share the same ethnicity, religious faith and maybe language. But they turned on one another over land. And this is a recurring thing in many farming communities in Nigeria during the farming season. Because the above incidents do not fit into our national ethno-religious narrative, it made limited headlines, compared to the herdsmen narrative.

 For many of our communities, farming and aquaculture are the main source of livelihood. These productive activities rely on access to farmland and source of water, which may be nothing more than the local stream, river or lake.  We can therefore understand why those communities would resist access to their farmlands and sources of water by outsiders to those communities, especially if such access is likely to lead to ruination of the farmland and water sources. And this is something that is often reported when cattle gain such access to farmland and water sources.

 The suggestion on the creation of grazing routes is therefore one that would clash with this reality, especially if such a creation is going to be arbitrary, without the consent of the locals along the planned routes. In any event, the planned routes would certainly cut across various states and communities and if there is resistance in any location along the route, it would affect the entire plan. Cattle rearing is a private business venture and it is important for those behind the business to negotiate their grazing routes or locations with those who own the lands along their proposed routes.

 The question would therefore be whether government can go ahead and acquire lands across the country for the purpose of establishing grazing lands for private businesses. Such land acquisition is to be distinguished from such ventures as oil production which is owned and operated by the Nigerian state and to that extent, government may acquire land for the purpose of running petroleum pipelines and protection thereof. Oil pipelines across communal lands may be more welcome than grazing routes because the pipeline routes do not thereby create settlements within people’s traditional homesteads. But grazing lands would certainly create such communities and before long we are likely to create a new narration of “indigenes” and “settlers” within communities, with the attendant social, political and economic tensions that go with it.

From the above, it seems the more realistic approach would be the creation of ranches. It would require business interests acquiring land for such venture and taking steps to ensure the cattle remain within the boundaries. It is also possible for different governments, federal, state or even local governments to establish such ranches, but it should be done with profit in mind so that whoever uses such facilities pays for the services. Even communities could do same, just like they do with establishment of markets.