The controversy over plans to establish cattle colonies in the country continues to reverberate. In many states, the people are agitated over issues such as the name ‘colony’ and what it connotes, fears that it could lead to permanent settlement of Fulani herdsmen who would procreate so rapidly and overrun the original inhabitants. There are also suggestions that it is a ploy for cultural subjugation. Christians, in particular, following the wailing, blood and sorrow that have trailed the activities of the Fulani herders in many parts of the country, are apprehensive that Islam could be planning to reenact the clashes between the Fulani and Hausa that led to subjugation in most parts of the North, institutionalisation of the Islamic religion and establishment of Emirate stools.
We commend the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Chief Audu Ogbeh, who is a renowned pastoralist and Idoma from Benue State. He has continued to explain the concept and benefits of the colonies. Given the latest explanation that the idea would not be forced on any state, we agree that it could be a noble idea. Chief Ogbeh has explained that each colony would require about 1,000 hectares of land, and accommodate about 30 to 40 ranches, or about 30,000 herd of cattle.
We call on the Federal Government not to relent on allaying lingering fears on the concept which are understandable in view of recent clashes in various parts of the country, including Benue, Taraba, Enugu, Ondo, Cross River, Edo, Oyo, Kaduna, among others. It must be emphasised that, under the Land Use Act, land is vested in the federating units, not the Federal Government that can no longer be trusted because of the poor management of the herdsmen/farmers’ clashes. Chief Ogbeh has restated that the states would be partners in the project to be funded by the Federal Government.
Ownership of land in the country is very sensitive and the cause of many a communal conflict. The issue should, therefore, be settled ab initio. Who would own the land after states might have agreed to the project? In what ways would the families and communities that originally own the land be accommodated? Would it be on purchase or lease; would the owners be compensated for the acquisition? The governments should learn from the agitation in the Niger Delta over resource control at this phase of the negotiations.
It is apposite, too, that adequate infrastructure for the cattle is provided and the fees and taxes to be paid by the herdsmen settled. This is because the government cannot afford to bring the cattle without putting in place all that is needed for their comfort in terms of feeding, water and the needs of the workers. Anything short of this would derail the plan and the cattle could be found sooner than later roaming freely in search of fodder.
We hope Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s committee would do a thorough job with a view to settling recent disputes, reconciling warring sides and assuring all that the Federal Government could be trusted with just intervention. This is the only thing that can reduce tension in the land.
A number of models have been proposed on handling the colonies or ranches. States that feel uncomfortable with having colonies, or are unable to make available the large expanse of land required and would rather have ranches should be encouraged to do so. Perhaps, by the time the experiment in the 16 states that have volunteered to participate might have succeeded, others would be persuaded to join.
Details of how meat would be transported round the country from the colonies to be established and other marketing details should be carefully worked out in the same way that cocoa and other cash crops were purchased and exported in the First Republic. The template could be studied and applied with regard to the planned colonies.
