By Bemgba Iortyom, Makurdi
Is the call by the Benue State Governor, Rev. Fr. Hyacinth Alia, a bold demand that the federal government rises up to its duty to protect Nigerians from terrorists, or is it a ploy to excuse himself from his sworn duty to protect the lives and property of citizens under his domain?
The Governor has come under the spotlight by his recent call for a nationwide ban on open grazing across Nigeria through a national law enacted by the National Assembly and enforced uniformly throughout the country. He declared that it is impossible for his government to enforce the law prohibiting open grazing of livestock in his state, placing the onus for doing so on the federal government.
As expected the call has stirred the hornet’s nest of debate which, as usual, is polarized along partisan lines. While the opposition faults it wholly, the governor’s supporters defend it equally wholly.
The opposition contends that the governor is merely flying a kite to detract attention from failure in his duty to enforce the law banning open grazing which has been in force in the state since 2017. They also hold that by stating that it is impossible for the state government under his watch to enforce the law, he has admitted defeat and by so doing amboldened the terrorists, giving them free rein to cause more mayhem.
Supporters of the governor counter that he is right to have stated the obvious, which is that it is impossible for a state government under the Nigerian federal system to enforce a law which, though enacted locally, is wholly reliant on federal security architecture for enforcement. They readily reference the efforts made by the immediate past Ortom administration to enforce the law which still failed to dislodge the herdsmen from the state.
There is, however, a point of convergence common to the positions of both sides, and this is the role of the federal security architecture as holder of the ultimate mandate of protecting and safeguarding the lives and property of Nigerians from criminals and terrorists.
It is the argument of the opposition, and rightly too, that the determined quest for enforcement of the ban on open grazing in Benue State by the Ortom administration was seriously shackled by constitutional limitations which vest almost entirely the powers over security to the prerogative of the federal government. Such limitations include restrictions on bearing or firearms of a particular calibre, which pegged local State Government security outfits, like the Benue Livestock Guards and Volunteer Guards to bearing only pump-action guns, while the terrorists bear sophisticated automatic firearms which are at par with even federal security forces.
The reality of the onus of security of lives and property of Nigerians being primarily the duty of the Federal government validates this call by Governor Alia for the ban on open grazing to be made a national law and enforced by the federal government. This logic here is unassailable as there can be no gainsaying the fact that on a technical level, there is not so much that a state government and its local outfits shackled by federal restrictions can do against the magnitude of the wave of terrorism being unleashed on its communities.
This call by the Benue State Governor, therefore, represents a bold step towards calling out the federal government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to evolve dynamic approaches towards tackling the scourge of insecurity ravaging the country. Insecurity is evolving across the country in innovative ways, and the counter measures against it cannot stay static.
For instance, in Benue State, under the Ortom administration’s regime of enforcement of the open grazing ban, it was possible to arrest violators of the ban and confiscate their herds of livestock, whereupon they were subjected to the prescribed sanctions under the law. However, findings have revealed that it is more difficult to do so under the current situation for the fact that herdsmen and their herds of cattle have adopted the strategy of their being accompanied by heavily armed militia groups ready to engage any force attempting arrest of violators of the ban and consfiscation of their cattle.
It was that armed wing of the violating herdsmen which is believed to have gunned down 4 mobile policemen at Nyiev a few days back, who had gone to intervene where the herdsmen and their cattle were grazing on farms of the locals. This armed wing is said to have been responsible for the deaths of other security agents in the state, both local and federal.
The federal government must necessarily reappraise the existing national security architectural framework with a readiness to stay on top of all scenarios being orchestrated by the terrorists. Doing this will involve taking into cognizance the realities on ground at the grassroots base of the country where the overwhelming majority of the population lives. It will entail the federal government creating a more active security nexus with the state government and the local government tiers of administration.
The fact that about 15 states in Nigeria today either have active laws banning open grazing or are on the cusp of doing so, indicates a growing general consensus on the need for the ban on open grazing. This is a fact which more than anything else highlights the problems that open grazing of livestock pose to the general Nigerian security situation. To put it poignantly, open grazing of livestock and its attendant fallout of conflict is the arrowhead of insecurity in Nigeria. It is sits at the zenith of national security concerns.
The response to it, therefore, must necessarily be national. It is escapist to continue to shift the bulk to state governments alone when it is apparent their capacities to handle the situation is limited, as it is under the existing national security framework.
This, in any case, does not absolve state governors of their primary responsibility to the people whose mandate they hold in trust and who they swore on oath to defend and protect.
While it is the ideal situation that the federal government bears the responsibility for the security or lives and property of Nigerians, where in reality there are gaps in the federal government’s fulfillment of that duty, as we have in Benue State presently, it falls to the responsibility of the governor to do all in his power to ensure his people and their property are protected. That in essence is the direct meaning and import of the oath he swore at inauguration.
It is akin to the duty imposed on the father or head of a family to protect his house from the assailant between a 911 call and when the response to the call arrives. A father or head of house who sits and watches his family hacked down by the intruding assailant, just because he is waiting for security agents to come to their aid has failed in his primary duty.
Governor Hyacinth Alia is the head of the Benue house, and while he has taken the bold step of placing the call on the federal government to rise to its duty, he must protect the people during this existing gap of inadequacy of federal security cover. He must rally the people to defend themselves with whatever is available to them.
What is available to the people of Benue State include the security vote that is coming to the office of the Governor on a monthly basis and the security vote coming to the office of the local government Chairman in each local government area of the state. Governor Alia should ensure this is utilised judiciously, constructively and ingeniously towards evolving local strategies at the grassroots for defending the people against the terrorists.
The governor should also “play the politics of national security” to lobby the desired attention and intervention of federal security cover to his state.
This is the realistic level at which Governor Hyacinth Alia must play and do so successfully, while he is pushing for the attainment of the ban on open grazing as a national law in Nigeria and enforced by the Nigerian federal government.
*Chief Iortyom Esq., writes as a Benue son and sent this piece from Abuja.
