Sunday Aborisade in Abuja
The Southern and Middle Belt Leaders’ Forum (SMBLF), has rejected federal government’s proposed pilot scheme for a new national livestock policy, alleging that the initiative could lead to the takeover of ancestral lands belonging to communities across the Middle Belt.
The statement was signed by Leader of Afenifere and Chairman of the SMBLF, Oba Oladipo Olaitan; President of the Middle Belt Forum, Dr Bitrus Pogu; President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, Senator John Azuta-Mbata; and the National Chairman of PANDEF, Ambassador Godknows Igali.
They described the proposed scheme as opaque, coercive and discriminatory.
The SMBLF said the proposed pilot areas included Nasarawa, Plateau, Benue, Southern Kaduna, Taraba and the Federal Capital Territory, expressing concern that the initiative was being concentrated largely in the Middle Belt despite the availability of vast expanses of sparsely populated land in other parts of the country.
The leaders warned that allowing the proposed scheme to proceed without adequate consultation and protection of community land rights could eventually lead to its expansion to the Southern states.
The forum stressed that it was not opposed to modern livestock production, ranching or the development of Nigeria’s livestock value chain, but insisted that any such policy must respect the rights of indigenous communities and should not be designed to favour a particular ethnic group.
“The SMBLF is not opposed to modern livestock production, ranching or the development of the livestock value chain. What we reject is the opaque, coercive and discriminatory manner in which this policy is being pursued,” the leaders said.
They declared their solidarity with the Middle Belt Forum, which had earlier rejected the proposed scheme, while urging communities and governments in the Southern states to remain vigilant against any attempt to extend the policy to their territories.
The SMBLF also challenged federal government’s interpretation of the Land Use Act of 1978, arguing that the legislation could not be used as a justification for arbitrary acquisition of community lands.
According to the forum, the law recognised customary rights of occupancy and permitted revocation of land rights only in accordance with the law and for overriding public interest.
It argued that ranching was essentially an economic enterprise that could be privately driven, warning that government must not disguise compulsory acquisition of land for specific economic interests as public interest.
The leaders further alleged that the proposed policy could be an attempt to establish permanent settlement zones for nomadic Fulani herders in areas where violent clashes between herders and farming communities had occurred over the years.