It is good a thing the federal government has suspended implementing the Ruga policy which seeks to permanently re-settle herders in all parts of the country. With that action, the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the country appears to be clearing, albeit temporarily. But narratives emerging from the suspended scheme do not imbue much hope that we have seen the last of that controversial exercise.
Stories from the National Executive Council, NEC, on farmers/herders crisis and officials of the federal and state governments miserably raise doubts as what exactly to believe in respect of that contentious policy. In all, what seems palpable is a conspiracy of some sort not to let the public into what the critical details of the policy are and the real intentions of the government on them.
Or how else do we explain the discordant tunes from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Governor David Umahi and the president’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu on the Ruga policy? Umahi had while announcing the suspension of the Ruga programme, left no one in doubt that the programme as being implemented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources is substantially at variance with the recommendations of the NEC on herders /farmers conflicts and the federal government’s approved National Livestock Transformation Plan NLTP.
According to him, the approved policy had provision for the rehabilitation of Internally Displaced Persons IDPs arising from herders and farmers crisis and the development of ranches in any willing state of the federation. “The NLTP, its beauty is that what NEC and the FG approved is a voluntary programme to all the 36 states who may like to participate. It is not compulsory; it is for any state that is willing. Any state that is interested in this programme is required to bring up development plan in line with our programme that is unique to his state based on its challenges in respect of the crisis” Umahi said.
But in his reaction to criticisms that trailed the exercise, Garba put up a strong defence for the programme even as he admitted it is not compulsory as only states that indicated interest would take part in it. For him, the advantages of the programme both in stemming crisis between herders/farmers and improving the yield from animal husbandry are so substantial to justify its implementation. He equally claimed that beneficiaries of the Ruga settlement programme will include all persons in animal husbandry and not just only herders.
Shehu stirred the hornet’s nest when he said “it is true that the government at the centre has gazetted lands in all states of the federation but because the idea is not to force this programme on any one, the government has limited the take-off to the dozen states with valid requests”.
Apparently piqued by Shehu’s claims on gazetting of lands in all states for the purpose, the Benue State government came out to put a lie to it. It said no land in Benue State was gazetted for grazing routes, grazing reserve, cattle colony or Ruga settlement contrary to claims by the presidency. It challenged the presidency to show evidence of such acquisition, the compensation paid and the endorsement of the state governor who controls and administers lands in the state in trust for the people.
So, we are left with discordant tunes from the three quarters. Governor Umahi was unequivocal that the recommendations of his committee approved by the federal government were for a comprehensive programme for the re-settlement of IDPs and ranching for willing states.
The implication is that at no time did the Ruga settlement policy feature either in the recommendations of the council or the approvals of the government on the resolution of the herders/farmers crisis. The question then is at what point did the Ruga policy crop up and which authority made such approval? Could the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources have invented and commenced the implementation of the policy on their own? And if it was entirely their initiative, what accounted for the strident defence of the exercise by the presidency if they were neither the authors of that policy nor privy to its critical details?
It is obvious we are yet to hear the real story on how the Ruga policy came about. But even in the midst of this seeming confusion or refusal to full disclosure, there seems to be an unseen hand manipulating the entire process. It is increasingly becoming very clear that there are interests that want the recurring conflicts between herders and farmers resolved on terms comfortable for the herders and their sponsors despite the fact that much of the burden of that conflict is borne by the farmers.
Why nothing was again heard of the plight of the IDPs before the Ruga policy rolled into action is at the root of the raging suspicion that the federal government is on a voyage to fulanize the country. It smacks of insincerity to embark on the re-settlement of herdsmen on the soils of those who continue to suffer immeasurable losses both in human and material capital on account of the conflicts herders largely stoke without giving a thought to how to mitigate the plights of those at the receiving end.
That is what exactly the authors of the Ruga settlement policy did when they ignored the recommendations for the establishment of ranches by willing states and the re-settlement of IDPs. It shows ample bias in government’s perception of the problem and a deliberate effort to foist pre-conceived agenda on the country. This agenda was given further fillip by the presidency when it claimed that lands have been gazetted in all the states of the federation for that contentious policy. The government was speaking from both sides of the mouth when it claimed Ruga is not only for herdsmen but all those involved in animal husbandry.
The Land Use Act vests the control of lands on governors. So who approved the lands said to have been gazetted for the Ruga programme? This question must be answered given the confusion that now trails the claim. Benue State has challenged the presidency to provide evidence of such approvals. The onus is on the presidency to rise to that challenge and disabuse the minds of the public that it has not grabbed states’ lands by force in furtherance of a dubious pet policy.
If lands have truly been gazetted in all the states for re-settling herdsmen and all those involved in animal husbandry under a policy tagged ‘Ruga’, do we need further evidence to sustain suspicions on the fulanisation of the country? The foreboding scenario is one in which separate enclaves will be created for Fulani herdsmen in all states of the federation. Ironically, many of these herdsmen are foreigners fleeing harsh climatic conditions and civil strife in their home countries. It is hard to fathom how such a policy of dispossessing locals of their ancestral lands to re-settle foreigners can possibly stand.
We need to get at the root of the claims and counter claims on the Ruga re-settlement policy. If there is no deliberate plan to foist a hidden agenda on the people; if the government is seriously committed to lasting solutions in the herders/farmers crisis, it must institute a commission of enquiry on how the Ruga policy came about. We are told Ruga is a Fulani word. How suitable that word is for the purpose is left to be conjectured.
More seriously, if the Buhari regime is seriously and genuinely committed to lasting solutions to the herders and farmers conflicts, ranching offers the best prospects. Inventing all manner of terms to conceal touted plans for cattle colony will prove counterproductive. The polity is already sensitized to manipulations of the government on this singular issue such that extreme care must be taken not to further overheat the polity.
But if Ruga policy or cattle colony is implemented in those states that are preponderantly Fulani as the Bauchi State governor claimed, the attraction to export them to other cultural settings will fizzle out unilaterally. So they can have it funded by their state governments.
No comments:
Post a Comment