Chidi Obineche

“Those opposed to the implementation of the suspended RUGA concept and ranches are selfish because government has a history of intervening in farming, providing agricultural inputs like dams, irrigation, fertilizers, etc and even setting up river basins across the country. Those having hysteria over the insecurity in the country heightened by the recent killing of the daughter of Afenifere leader, Reuben Fasoranti also miss the point because there were high profile killings under Obasanjo’s regime also. The 2014 national conference report should not be implemented because the delegates were unelected.”

These, among other contemporary national issues, are the thoughts of Anthony N. Z. Sani, the General Secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, a leading northern-based socio-cultural group in an interview with Sunday Sun.

 

The Northern Elders Forum, NEF, Spokesman, Prof Ango Abdullahi recently ordered Fulani herdsmen staying in the South to return home.  The presidency has, however, repudiated it, describing it as unauthorized. What is the reaction of ACF to this?

I don’t see any serious issue there. People are free to reside wherever they like in the country.  My understanding of Prof Ango Abullahi’s advice to herders in the South to “return” home is hinged on the thought that should they believe that their safety in the South is no more guaranteed by both the host governors and the people of their respective states, they are at liberty to relocate. I do not think it was an order as such, considering the trite that the professor is not in a position to give such order. It is only the herders in the southern states who are in position to assess their safety and make such decisions themselves. But I do not pander to any idea of giving ethnic, religious, and regional coloration to everything under the sun. This is because to do so in the case of criminal activities is to unwittingly provide criminal platforms for them to shield themselves and perpetrate crimes, knowing how impossible to prosecute ethnicity, religion and region. More distressing is the fact that such coloration criminalizes the whole ethnic extraction, or religion, or region and offends sensitivity with dire consequences. I, therefore, believe that any counter-order by sister socio-cultural or regional groups from the South are not necessary, precisely, because it is not helpful. What I don’t like in the whole drama is that people who are opposed to open grazing of cows because they say it is creating crises are the same people who don’t like ranching or any form of government intervention. They are the same people who don’t like RUGA and who are doing everything possible to instigate the people against it and foment trouble.  This is not fair. The government is only trying to institute a holistic programme on nomadic practices, which will bring to an end the perennial clashes of herdsmen and farmers and restore normalcy in the country.  The people who are saying they have no land for RUGA; they will do this or that; do they mean well at all? All the same, the government is sensitive in its approach to issues and has demonstrated immense patriotism by suspending the programme.

But suspension is not withdrawal. Many people are still suspicious of the intentions of government on the project as it has yet to declare it completely withdrawn?

It has suspended the RUGA project in order to calm frayed nerves, and to give opportunity to the critics of the concept to proffer viable solutions that are acceptable to the majority of stakeholders. I expect those opposed to it to use the opportunity of the suspension to proffer a viable and acceptable solution to it rather than to continue to ventilate aspersions and creating tension. That is not what they are doing.  No one is making suggestions on the way forward or what to do that will replace RUGA. What do we do? It has been suspended, but they are still talking about it and do not feel challenged in any way to provide an alternative. You may wish to know that those who oppose open grazing by nomads because they are predisposed to trespasses that bring about clashes between the herds men and farmers are the same groups opposed to government’s interventions in both ranches and RUGA which is actually aimed at encouraging sedentary habit that are amenable to monitoring for security reasons and purposes, and can lead to establishment and effective management of ranches. Government is saying that the suspension is to pave way for more consultations. I read something from one of the governors in the Southeast where he was talking that there is no land for RUGA. His argument was completely out of touch with reality. He was merely trying to throw out the project without making an alternative way to go. When you reject an idea, is it not sensible to suggest another idea? We have not seen that yet in the attitude and comments of those who are opposed to it. They only say “we don’t want it. It is not going to work here.” Are they saying that the Fulani who are peaceful and   are going about their normal businesses peacefully, that we should not provide an ethnic platform for them to thrive?

 

But the issue there, which is also glossed over is that people feel that this programme has the capacity to conflagrate the country, given the pluralistic nature of the country with many ethnic nationalities and religions and that it will compound the efforts of the founding fathers to forge unity across all frontiers. Do you not think so? Again, some people feel it is an attempt to promote the private business of a particular ethnic group with public funds?

It is important to note that ranches are presently beyond the capacity of individual nomads. And just as it is unrealistic to expect subsistence farmers to modernize with sleight of hand, it is unthinkable to expect herdsmen to modernize their occupation of husbandry overnight. Hence, the significance of government’s desire to get involved in the establishment of ranches and RUGA for both security and economic purposes. After all, government has intervened in River Basins, in construction of dams, and in subsidies of tractors, and fertilizers, etc, in order to help improve the volume and quality of agricultural products by farmers. Also, government has bailed out private institutions, which are considered too important or too big to fail by privatizing their profits and socializing their losses.  And if herdsmen are farmers, and also Nigerians, I think they are also entitled to some forms of support by governments, especially if such interventions can also improve security for public good. That is even where they got it wrong. In what way is RUGA containing the spirit and intent of these purveyors of falsehood and propaganda? I am asking you. Governments all over the world have been involved in integrated farming. They have been subsidizing agriculture. They have been subsidizing livestock, providing irrigation for farmers and ensuring food security. What is the role of government in human affairs and what is the difference you have seen in the RUGA project? Government provides fertilizers for farmers and nobody is protesting. They build dams, provide and ensure cultivation of crops on arable land. Are we not witnesses to all of this? Have we not seen where ministries of Agriculture offer subsidies to farmers before? Is this the first time that government is getting involved in agriculture or is it because this is called livestock? Government is trying to sort out a problem that has been with us like a sore and instead of getting support and encouragement it is getting condemnation and rejection. I do not believe that this approach is well meaning and helpful. I commend government for this bold initiative, which past governments had shied away from. In any case, those predisposed to ranching as against nomadic practices ought to know the benefits and I believe they know, even when they talk tongue in cheek. Haba! We should be reasonable. We should be able to identify the things that need to be attended to at the right time no matter the issues involved and set about achieving them without let or hindrance. What they are talking does not make sense. I don’t know where you come from. Can you imagine someone asking farmers to modernize their operations with their own resources? Is it practicable given the enormous resources involved in it?

You know why there is this uproar? There is a strong argument that in some countries like Argentina, Isreal and Norway, nomadic practices were jettisoned without government throwing in money to the nomads. As the argument goes, if it was possible in these countries, why is it not like that in Nigeria?

You know the Romans? There are nomadic people there. There is a deliberate effort by government to intervene and change their situation. You are involved in promoting valleys and tree planting. Why should we not be involved in improving the value of life of herdsmen? Why should we not make their way of living and the process of livestock breeding less herculean? We must not give the impression that we are selfish. We must not give the impression that we are seeing the project from a different narrow prism.

How about the letter from former President Obasanjo warning the president that the level of insecurity brought about by the herdsmen activities could lead to a break down of law and order and eventual war. Are you not seeing what he is seeing? Is Nigeria on the brink?

That is his own view. That is his own interpretation of the whole issue. It is surprising that while government is making efforts to make peace, people like him are not seeing it that way. There are people like that who will never see any good in any government because of their bias. They criticize for the sake of criticism and not that they are really ready to solve problems.

But are you not feeling the heat of the heightened insecurity in this country?

If we are talking about how we should overcome insecurity, it involves everybody. Are you getting me? It is the concern of every Nigerian. But when you begin to give it ethnic coloration, when you begin to give it religious coloration, you are sending the wrong signals and fuelling insecurity the more. When you see everything along ethnic line, you are courting ethnic conflagration; you are courting religious conflagration. You have set out to instigate confusion, which ab initio, you claimed to be solving. You are not helping any matter by doing so. You should be seen to be helping in projecting the survival of the country in any way you can, but don’t give it ethnic coloration. A statesman must put the interest of the country first before anything. That is how it should be and that is how they attract national and international respect.

Looking at the entire scenario where people are being killed every now and then. Where kidnapping for ransom is the order of the day and where there is ethnic mistrust as you just highlighted, we reason that it has never been like this since the end of the war nearly five decades ago. Do you not think that people like him should be concerned naturally?

I want to disagree. Where were you so many years ago when kidnappings started in Rivers, Bayelsa states and spread across in the Niger Delta and Southeast?

Did you not notice it at that time? It was rampant. I warned that as long as armed robbery was thriving at the time, there was an ever-present tendency that it would move into kidnapping because of the perception of more lucrative result. It happened and is still happening.

But it is not on the scale it is going now.

It has always been there. In fact, if anything, I believe that the government is making conscious efforts towards combating it. Without the courageous efforts of government to tame it and bring it down to the level it is now, it would have been out of control. It would have turned this country upside down. We have to appreciate these modest efforts and encourage government to do more in this direction. I am not opposed to any suggestion on how to curb it. But I am not for those who will give it ethnic coloration or religious coloration. It will not solve the problem. It will rather make it worse.

Former president Goodluck Jonathan, Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, and former Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku have joined Obasanjo in criticizing the way President Buhari is handling security matters in the country. What do you say to this at this critical time? Is Nigeria on the brink?

Let me tell you. With due respect to them, I believe they are not correct. Let me tell you; you know this thing appears to have heightened because of the killing of the daughter of Fasoranti, the Afenifere leader. It is that killing that is making it look as if the nation is on a precipice. Am I not correct?

That one was just one killing too many

Wait, wait!. You and I were in this country when Obasanjo was in power.  Bola Ige was killed. Funsho Williams was killed. Dokubo was killed, and many others. They were high profile killings. Was it the Fulani who killed them? I am asking you? Was it the Fulani who killed them? I think we should be wary of the motives we put into issues, especially when it has to do with killings. It is sensitive and even in a court of law it has to be proved beyond every reasonable doubt. It is only through thorough investigations that killers are unmasked. Sitting down and making imputations when the police are yet to conclude investigations and unravel the killers is not helpful at all.

What is your thinking on the issue of random killings on the roads? The ones you identified, they were not randomly killed on the roads. They were marked or targeted, which is the difference.

I don’t think investigation is the issue now. The police are doing their job. What the country needs is solution to the myriads of problems confronting her. Do you understand? Those who are opposed to RUGA should come forward with viable solution rather than stoking the embers of conflict. If you have no solution, then what is the need opposing it?

Let me go back to the order by northern elders asking Fulani herdsmen to quit the South. Do you support it?

Some journalists had asked me this question before. My standard response still remains the same. What I heard and read that was said which you people are interpreting as order was an advisory. They said if you are there, and you have no guarantee of your safety, it is better you return home.  That was what I heard and read. I did not see it as an order that they should quit the South and return home. They are the ones who know their environment, who know how safe they are wherever they are. If in their judgment and estimation, they feel they are not safe, the decision is theirs to return home. Are you getting me? That is the truth of the matter and that is the way I understood it. The decision is their own to make. You are not there to decide for them. If the environment is hostile they will know and make necessary decision along that line.

 Do you suggest a similar order that southerners living in the North should return home if they also feel that their security is not guaranteed?

Ah, Ah! Why should that happen? That is why I told you that when people begin to read and interpret everything along ethnic and religious lines, then there is a problem that will be difficult to solve. Why are we giving this kind of thing ethnic and religious coloration? Why? Is it to promote war or what?

Some people are calling for national conference to resolve some of these problems bedeviling the country. Do we need it?

(Laughs) National Conference? We have had national conferences before.

 But the reports were not implemented

I believe there have been too many conferences which reports have not been implemented, precisely because the confabs comprised unelected delegates. And since we are in a multi- party democracy, I suggest that each political party should use the reports of the past confabs to resource materials and pick the aspects of the reports agreeable to the party into the party manifesto and use same to canvass for the electoral mandate needed for implementation. That is how multi-party democracy works. It is not for some select elite to sit in Abuja, or in Ibadan, Enugu or in Bayelsa state and try to foist their preferences on Nigerians undemocratically. I am asking you, do you expect any democratically elected government to implement the decisions of unelected delegates to a national conference? People who were not elected; people who were picked were made to take decisions on the future of the country and you expect their decisions to be upheld by a democratically elected government? How can we achieve reforms on the polity based on a report by unelected delegates? Let the parties make reforms and inject it in their manifestoes and it will have a great impact. It is not for unelected people to make decisions for us and want it to be implemented.