By Emeka Omeihe
Outrage over federal government’s proposal to set up cattle colonies in states is not entirely unexpected. Minister of Agriculture, Audu Ogbeh who leaked the policy said it was government’s response to festering clashes between herdsmen and farmers in the country.
Though details of the cattle colonies have remained largely cloudy, Ogbeh said 16 states have already offered lands for the purpose. The much we have been let into is that the colonies will have such social amenities as good roads, a school for nomads’ children and health facilities. It was also touted as a joint venture between the federal government and the states.
Ogbeh must have also shocked the nation when he disclosed that President Buhari promised to give them, ‘financial help over and above the budget provisions’ to ensure the success of the programme. From all indications, the project is a fait accompli especially in the states that are said to have donated lands.
But many other states have voiced opposition to the idea. Benue and Taraba would have nothing to do with it. States in the south are also opposed to the creation of colonies for cattle in their domain. It is not yet clear the 16 states that have been factored into the programme. My guess is that they are likely to be states in the north with large Fulani indigenous population predominantly engaged in cattle rearing.
That may have accounted for the relative obscurity that enveloped the programme until the minister blew its lid open. That may also have been the reason why as many as 16 states have donated lands for such a federal project without the knowledge of the rest. If this conclusion is right, the programme is unlikely to encounter much problem in those states. But the rationale in federal funding of the colonies which are private business concerns will still be an issue.
For one, the announcement came at a time the country was still reeling under the pains of senseless killings by Fulani herdsmen in parts of the country especially in Benue State. Floating such idea under the circumstance was definitely bound to ruffle sensibilities. It was definitely an act of indiscretion.
Again, though the critical details of the so-called cattle colonies are still largely vague, some of their features have raised fears as to the real intention of the government in evolving the contraption as a veritable solution to the recurring clashes between the herders and farmers. Not unexpectedly, criticisms have come in torrents questioning the rationale for the idea.
Matters are not remedied by the equivocation of Ogbeh on the real meaning and implications of having cattle colonies in all states of the federation. At one time, he said ranches and cattle colonies are different concepts altogether. At another, he claimed a ranch could accommodate many colonies implying that a ranch is a cluster of colonies. With this ambiguity, the feeling in many states is that the federal government will grab or blackmail states to donate hectares of land for it to build modern facilities and have Fulani herdsmen and their cattle housed there. With that, the area becomes a colony of Fulani herdsmen and their cattle.
Thesaurus defines a colony as a settlement in a new region or a country. For Catherine Martin, colonization is the act or action of taking over colonies while colonialism is the ideology or theology advocating colonizing areas. Conceived this way, the contradiction in setting up cattle colonies especially in states the purveyors of the occupation and their trade are alien becomes more glaring. It is therefore not for nothing that some states view the project as another subterfuge to plant Fulani herdsmen across the federation.
So the so-called cattle colonies could turn out as cattle colonization or colonialism by Fulani herdsmen. It will for instance, amount to building settlements for Fulani herders in Anambra, Bayelsa or Ekiti states. Its final outcome would manifest in acquiring hectares of land in these states for the federal government to establish the so-called colonies equipped with modern facilities in sharp contrast with the debilitating poverty of their immediate surroundings. They would have created a class of favoured settlements with modern amenities while their hosts live in squalor. Funding these amenities for inmates of the colonies in areas that have over the years had little or no federal government presence constitutes both the necessary and sufficient conditions for serious resentment and another round of crisis. It will no doubt fuel feelings of nepotism and bias for which this government has received serious bashing. This is to be expected given that within the same environment, there are sets of farmers that rely on self-help for their special types of businesses.
The government will be hard put to justify why the herdsmen should merit preferential treatment in their private business engagements which they sell to the public at some profit. Questions will be raised as to whether we are rewarding the herdsmen for levying war on innocent citizens. Or is it the reward for the insurgency of the herdsmen that have been rated the fourth most deadly terrorist group in the world?
Beyond this and stemming from the latter, the opposition to cattle colonies has serious justification especially in parts of the middle belt and the south of the country. The profile herdsmen have courted in the last couple of years has been that of an unfriendly and deadly neighbour. In many of the states, they have metamorphosed into an invincible killer squad instead of the stick-wielding itinerant cattlemen they were accustomed to.
In their new and dangerous form, they are feared and dreaded by their hosts. Given this antecedent in negative profiling, it will be a grave risk allowing them a settlement/colony in states other than their own. The fear of domination and an agenda is further accentuated by the fact that Buhari is the man promoting this new policy, albeit surreptitiously. Many believe that beneath the move lies expansionism fuelled by colonization. They view the idea as another attempt to penetrate all the nooks and crannies of the country to enforce an agenda of very questionable and mundane nature.
There are also fears that in the nearest future, the so-called colonies would become Fulani territories and they will begin to agitate for political rights. The social media has been awash with all manner of possibilities as to what the so-called colonies will turn out in the future. We can dismiss these with a wave of the hand. But if events in other parts of the country especially in the middle belt are anything to repose hope in, the fear of emirates springing up in these states in the nearest future can only be ignored at a great risk. These are some of the contradictions. Being colonies, arrangements would soon be made for polling booths and even wards depending on the population. Being a settlement of people of the same stock, they may soon begin to elect representatives to the various elective positions. There is nothing wrong with that if they were living together with the indigenous people.
But to achieve this through the instrumentality of the exclusivity of the colonies has everything wrong with it. It reinforces all the fears on having cattle settlements or colonies in states where that culture of trade is non-existent. It reinforces the accusation of an agenda as the raison d’être for the programme. Buhari may wish to proceed with the programme in those states in the north where the Fulani people own ancestral lands with cattle farming being the predominant occupation.
It will be counterproductive to enforce the programme in states opposed to it or states where the Fulani’s and cattle farming are not part and parcel of the indigenous population. The people in the south have no need for cattle colonies. Perhaps, the government should also come up with suitable colonies for pigs, goats, dogs and the local brand of cows reared in the south. Before then, we need to be told where the appropriation for the funding of the cattle colonies will come from.
