From The Nijasun News Analysis Desk
The demand by pastoralist organisations for 30 per cent of Nigeria’s agricultural budget and the protection of 417 grazing reserves has reopened one of the country’s most contentious debates.
The debates are on whether the government’s approach to livestock development can deliver peace without compromising the rights, security and livelihoods of farming communities.
The groups, under the Confederation of Pastoralist Non-Governmental Organisations (CONPA), have rejected the association of Fulani pastoralists with banditry, kidnapping and terrorism.
They have also called on President Bola Tinubu to convene a national dialogue on farmer-herder conflicts, citing alleged killings of hundreds of pastoralists in recent months.
Their position raises legitimate questions about ethnic profiling, the protection of innocent citizens and the need for a comprehensive solution to the persistent violence between farmers and herders.
However, their demands also require closer scrutiny, particularly concerning public expenditure, grazing reserves, accountability and the responsibilities of pastoralist communities.
The Burden of Collective Blame
The pastoralists are right on one fundamental principle: criminal responsibility must be individual, not ethnic.
It is unjust to label an entire ethnic group as criminals because some of its members are implicated in violent crimes. Fulani pastoralists, like other Nigerians, are entitled to constitutional protection, fair treatment and access to justice.
However, rejecting ethnic profiling must not become a means of avoiding legitimate scrutiny of criminal networks operating under the guise of pastoralism. Equally, the fact that some suspected criminals are Fulani does not justify treating every Fulani herder as a bandit.
The appropriate response is evidence-based policing, impartial investigations and prosecution of identified offenders, irrespective of ethnicity, religion or social status.
The pastoralist organisations must also recognise that farmers and rural communities have endured killings, kidnappings, destruction of livelihoods and displacement. Their fears cannot be dismissed as ethnic prejudice simply because some victims identify their attackers as herders.
Nigeria cannot achieve justice by recognising the suffering of one group while overlooking that of another.
The Controversial 30 Per Cent Budget Demand
The demand that the Federal Government allocate at least 30 per cent of the agricultural budget to livestock development is perhaps the most striking aspect of the pastoralists’ position.
There is a strong economic argument for investing in livestock. The sector can generate employment, improve food security, create export opportunities and support industries such as meat processing, dairy production, leather manufacturing and animal feed production.
Nonetheless, demanding 30 per cent of the agricultural budget raises important questions.
What is the current size of the agricultural budget? What specific programmes would the proposed allocation finance? What measurable benefits would farmers, pastoralists and consumers receive? And what safeguards would prevent the funds from being wasted or diverted?
These questions matter because public expenditure must be guided by evidence, national priorities and demonstrable returns, not merely the lobbying power of a particular interest group.
If livestock development deserves increased funding, the government should determine an appropriate allocation through transparent planning, economic analysis and consultation with all stakeholders.
The pastoralists’ claim that livestock represents a ₦30 trillion economy also requires independent verification and clarification of the estimate’s scope, methodology and timeframe.
An important industry deserves serious investment, but the size of its budget should be justified by credible data and clearly defined development objectives.
The 417 Grazing Reserves Question
The call to gazette and protect 417 grazing reserves presents an even more sensitive challenge.
For decades, open grazing and competition over land and water have contributed to tensions between farmers and pastoralists. Population growth, urbanisation, environmental pressures and the expansion of cultivated land have further complicated access to grazing routes and resources.
However, a demand to protect hundreds of grazing reserves cannot be treated as a simple administrative exercise.
The government must establish the legal status, ownership, location, boundaries and present condition of each reserve. It must also determine whether any proposed development would affect existing communities, private landowners or farmers with legitimate claims to the land.
Gazetting a reserve cannot automatically extinguish lawful property rights or override due process.
Furthermore, the existence of grazing reserves does not, by itself, guarantee peaceful coexistence. Without reliable water supplies, veterinary services, security, access roads and effective management, designated grazing areas may fail to deliver their intended benefits.
The government should therefore consider modern ranching, commercial livestock production, fodder cultivation and other sustainable systems that reduce competition between livestock and crop farming.
Any policy must respect the constitutional rights of citizens while addressing the practical needs of livestock production.
The Missing Voice of Farmers
One weakness in the demands presented by the pastoralist coalition is the need to demonstrate how farmers’ concerns will be represented in the proposed national dialogue.
The organisations have called for a presidential declaration of dialogue and reconciliation involving pastoralist groups, traditional rulers, religious organisations, security agencies and state governments.
That proposal could provide a useful starting point. However, farmers’ associations, communities affected by violence, victims’ families and displaced residents must have meaningful representation.
A dialogue dominated by political leaders and organised interest groups would risk producing agreements that look impressive on paper but fail to address the experiences of people living with insecurity.
Farmers must be able to speak about destroyed crops, loss of lives, attacks on their communities and the financial consequences of abandoning their farms.
Pastoralists must equally be able to present evidence of attacks, cattle rustling, displacement and unlawful killings.
The objective should not be to determine which group deserves greater sympathy. It should be to establish facts, secure justice, compensate verified victims where appropriate and develop enforceable measures to prevent further violence.
Allegations of Killings Must Be Investigated
The coalition alleges that hundreds of pastoralists have been killed in recent months in Plateau, Niger, Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara and other parts of the country.
It also claims that thousands of cattle have been rustled or killed and that entire settlements have been destroyed.
These are grave allegations that warrant independent investigation. However, the figures and circumstances presented in the statement should not be treated as independently established facts without corroborating evidence.
The government should establish the identities of victims, the locations and dates of reported incidents, the circumstances of the killings and the responsibility of suspected perpetrators.
Where evidence establishes that criminal acts occurred, the authorities must pursue prosecution and provide appropriate assistance to affected communities.
The same standard should apply to attacks on farmers, pastoralists, rural settlements and other vulnerable populations.
Claims of selective reporting and unequal treatment also deserve examination. Transparent documentation of violence would help counter misinformation, expose genuine patterns of discrimination and strengthen public confidence in security institutions.
Can Dialogue End the Crisis?
The pastoralists are correct that military operations alone cannot resolve a conflict rooted in land use, livelihoods, criminality, weak accountability and competition over natural resources.
Nevertheless, dialogue cannot substitute for security enforcement.
Armed bandits, kidnappers, cattle rustlers and individuals who deliberately attack farmers or herders must face the law. Negotiations must not become a pathway to impunity or an opportunity for criminal groups to obtain political recognition without accountability.
A credible national dialogue should therefore operate alongside effective policing, prosecution, land-use planning, conflict prevention and community-level peace agreements.
It should also establish a mechanism for monitoring compliance and resolving disputes before they escalate into violence.
Pastoralist leaders have a responsibility to discourage unlawful grazing, respect farmers’ property rights and report criminal conduct. Farmers and community leaders must also avoid reprisals against innocent people based on ethnicity or occupation.
Traditional rulers, religious institutions and elected representatives should help build trust rather than inflame suspicion.
Tinubu’s Livestock Ministry Must Deliver Results
The pastoralist groups commended President Tinubu for establishing the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development, describing it as a historic step after decades of agitation.
They nevertheless complained that the ministry lacks adequate funding and a clear operational framework.
The government should respond by publishing a realistic development plan, identifying priority investments and establishing measurable targets.
Such a plan should address animal health, disease control, modern ranching, fodder production, dairy development, meat processing, livestock markets and conflict prevention.
It should also clarify how federal initiatives will work with state governments, particularly because land administration and local conditions vary across the country.
Most importantly, public investment must be accompanied by transparency and accountability.
Neither pastoralists nor farmers should be expected to accept a policy simply because the government announces it.
They should be able to assess its implementation and determine whether it improves livelihoods, reduces violence and strengthens food security.
The Final Test: Justice Without Privilege
The pastoralists’ demands expose the difficult balance facing Nigeria: protecting the rights of a historically important economic community while responding firmly to insecurity and protecting the livelihoods of farming populations.
Their rejection of collective blame deserves serious consideration. Their calls for investigations, humanitarian assistance and dialogue also merit attention.
As a matter of fact, demands for substantial public funding and the protection of grazing reserves must be subjected to transparent scrutiny, legal safeguards and broad consultation.
The Federal Government must resist both ethnic discrimination and political pressure that seeks to place any group above the law.
The real test of Tinubu’s livestock policy will not be how much money is allocated or how many grazing reserves are gazetted, but whether Nigerians can farm, rear livestock and travel without fear of being killed, displaced or robbed of their livelihoods.
Nigeria needs a livestock policy that creates wealth without deepening division, a security system that punishes criminals without profiling innocent citizens, and a justice system that recognises victims regardless of their ethnic identity.
Peaceful coexistence is possible, but it will require more than declarations, budgetary demands and dialogue conferences. It will require justice, accountability, practical reforms and the political will to protect every Nigerian.
Tags: Herdsmen, Farmer-Herder Crisis, Tinubu, Livestock Development
