The Nigerian Senate elevated its leadership profile in the country last week when it opted to pass the second reading of a bill which seeks to ban open grazing and establish ranches for herders in the country. The bill was passed by a clear majority of the senators when their President, Godswill Akpabio, put it to vote. All well-meaning citizens ought to commend the senate on the development which no doubt represents the first major pan-Nigeria attempt to address the interminable conflict between farmers and herders in the country. A few legislators who spoke against the bill were able to fulfil the democratic precept that although the majority must have its way, the minority must also have its say.

It makes ample sense to imagine that this is solution-time for the problem as the present administration positions itself to fill governance gaps which its predecessor neglected to accomplish from 2015 to 2023.The anti-open grazing policy ought to be at the front burner of issues requiring the attention of Tinubu’s government because of the capacity of the subject to massively disrupt national integration. Government needs to be sensitive to the ease with which the centrifugal factors of heterogeneous societies can dismember Nigeria. Never again should our politicians play politics with boiling issues such as ethnicity and religion. No one should support or oppose a destructive issue such as open grazing just to satisfy the emotions of their constituents.

Legislators have a primary responsibility to be on the same page with their constituents, but they must also be ready to give way where the contending perspectives may not be in the overall interest of society. Thus, political leaders should not stand rigidly behind primordial issues just to please their local segment of citizens. Instead, leaders must be flexible enough to embrace a broader perspective when it is appropriate. During the political campaigns leading to the Second Republic, Alhaji Shehu Shagari originally a senatorial aspirant decided to, in line with the choice of his constituents, publicly support population as a basis for revenue allocation; but when destiny pushed him to become a presidential candidate, he became an astute advocate for derivation because the entire nation had become his constituency. 

It is patently wrong for leaders to use freedom of movement in our constitution to support open grazing without remembering that the freedom granted by the constitution does not extend to the discretion to commit crime. Every freedom is expected to be enjoyed responsibly without disrupting the freedom of other people. Accordingly, herders or any other group can move freely nationwide but cannot in the process destroy other people’s businesses. More importantly, every citizen must realize that the same constitution validates any law which curtails freedom in the interest of the general public. Indeed, Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 specifically provides that a law can validly curtail any person’s freedom “for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.”

What this suggests is that there comes a time where certain groups may lose their freedom for the general good. For those of us in the media and communication sector, the law of defamation effectively stops us from defaming any person on the ground that we have freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one in Nigeria is more discriminated against than media professionals because even when they publish the truth about leaders, they are arrested by law enforcement agencies and detained without trial. Yet, Section 22 of our constitution mandates the media to make government accountable to the people. In line with the current anti-open grazing posture, the senate should emulate Malawi, Ghana and others to enact laws stopping agencies of government from undue harassment of media professionals in Nigeria.

A major reason we expect our legislators to be more dynamic in deploying the instrumentality of law to correct several abuses is because much is expected from whom much is given. With all the allowances that our legislators allegedly commandeer, they must be forthcoming in using law to develop our democracy. An APC Senator, Titus Zam, Benue (North-West) who moved the discussions on the anti-open grazing bill accepted this much when he said:”the Senate cannot afford to look on while the country burns into ashes as a result of violent clashes between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders.”Zam insists that to do otherwise would amount to abdication of statutory and leadership responsibilities by legislators who are prime stakeholders in the Nigeria project and elected representatives of the people. 

Certainly, the adverse effects of open grazing far outweigh its benefits. Cattle rearing does not only degrade the environment, it also depletes the soil and forests, just as it pollutes clean water. It provokes clashes with other groups, disrupts agriculture and displaces farmers thereby contributing largely to food insecurity. But the most serious effect as earlier stated is the daily killings of citizens which no one has been able to halt for an entire decade. The need to call attention to the situation is more understood when it is realized that for several centuries, cattle herders and other farmers had lived peacefully in the same communities. History even records circumstances where herders voluntarily compensated farmers whose crops were destroyed by their cattle making it obvious that regulation of the subject is overdue.

The way forward is to endeavour to comprehend how other countries have handled the subject which has overwhelmed Nigeria. Here, we must return to the sermon of best practices and global realities which our nation often conveniently ignores. We cannot continue to talk about old grazing routes the way our politicians who cherish election rigging hang-on to analogue electoral processes. The popular view is that cattle ranching can drastically reduce the negative effects of open grazing yet, no one seems ready to embrace it. In 2019, Nigeria launched a ten-year National Livestock Transformation Plan that can help to stop the indiscriminate movement of cattle and reduce the nation’s existential herder-farmer conflict. The plan like some other public policies died on arrival with many people arguing against government’s involvement in the subject which they categorized as essentially a private enterprise.

If the truth must be told, the lack of political will to sustain the plan is an error of judgment. Government cannot pretend that its interest was really dissuaded by the private enterprise criticism. Politicians who always support open grazing should not restrict their support to mere talks, they should help to organize herders to embrace the system and lobby governments and private donors to see to the realization of ranching.  But then, how can our government that subsidizes pilgrimages and occasionally aids private airlines as well as failed banks not do same for ranching? It can however not be a burden for the federal government alone. States with many herders should be more forthcoming on the subject. 

It is obvious that the real problem is not land but funds and structures that can sustain the business. Government needs to intervene even if it is in the form of loans. To prevent further conflicts between ranchers and wolves and create a conducive environment for peace, the United States government spent huge sums in 2023, to help ranchers in locations such as Colorado to “put up fences, remove carcasses from landscapes and hire range riders to watch herds more closely.”Every government ought to secure its nation from all types of challenges especially those of intractable nature. This is why we praise the positive take-off stance of the anti-open grazing bill in Nigeria and the progress so far recorded which shows it is a popular bill.

The senate should keep up the momentum and ensure that the debate does not become that of “they versus us” where one group opposes whatever the other appears to support. The few law-makers who spoke against the bill must not see themselves as losers because the real significance of their contribution lies in their desire to canvass the other dimension of the subject. But more importantly, it is time for our legislators to articulate a robust solution for a problem that has refused to go. If they fail to seize the golden opportunity to make history, they will end up in boring sessions everyday observing a minute silence for the dead; and thereby engaging in legislation by condolence.