THE STUDENT LOAN ACT: An analysis of the taxonomy of corrpution that could handicap the scheme.

THE STUDENT LOAN ACT: An analysis of the taxonomy of corruption that could handicap the scheme.

By Kay Aderibigbe. 

As crude and as dysfunctional as the Nigerian education system seems currently, an idea in the form of a non-commercial and uncollateralized loan, for students from families with moderate incomes, to sponsoring their education is candidly a good development.

Though, the whole scheme, if not isolated from the ‘Nigerian milieu’ could be a bit disproportionately impactful. But nevertheless, our people are expected to entertain less of social scepticism on this ‘new order of higher education’. We should rather, instead, think collectively around the circumference of how to make the scheme fare better in real time.

It is an axiom that, there is basically no facet of life in Nigeria that is devoid of or unsusceptible to corrupt practices. According to Mathew. T. Page (2018), “Corruption is the single greatest obstacle preventing Nigeria from achieving its enormous potential”. He went further and emphasised that . . corruption in Nigeria is not always clear-cut or limited in focus, but rather it is interconnected involving a range of behaviours that cleave across sectors.

Over the years in Nigeria, many laudable policies have graced the political scenes, but the time for implementation is always fraught with the awakening of various invisible hands from various quarters that will steer in different directions, the functionality of the very professional directorate of the state meant to execute the policy. These invisible hands are capable of manifesting in diverse forms.

One amazing uniqueness of political corruption in this clime is that, all the prospective beneficiaries of the nefarious activity are interested in different degree of benefits. Some are after the 'immediate' or ‘main functions’ of the organisation to which they intend to benefit from. For instance, an undocumented and unverified loan form the Bank of Education. While some are looking forward to getting themselves fixed in the ‘position of authorities’ embedded in the institutional settings of the organisation in question.

In the same vein, some are targeting the 'loopholes in the legal framework' of the organisation so that they could profit from the laxity that exists between the state and the practical being of the organisation. The most embarrassing and the last set of corrupt practitioners are the political jobbers/officials, who are excessively used to perquisites to the point that, they see those 'largesse as legalised form of corruption'. People in this category are the ones that sell off physical assets of parastatals when the material existence of a government functionary is liquidated. 

This is exactly why the Anthropologist, Daniel Jordan Smith, in his landmark book, ‘A culture of Corruption’, argues that, “corruption in Nigeria is deep, emotionally-ladden, and illustrative of the personal mannerism of the majority of conscious persons that are in charge of a function of facilities that are meant for servicing the state or the people”.

As at the last time I saw the ‘clean copy of the bill’ (the last stage of a bill on the floor of the house), it only extrapolated the operational imperatives of the whole scheme; and not the detailed specifics of the various units and sub-units that will make up the aggregative whole of the Bank of Education.

Availability of many loopholes in a project may cause policy somersault and eventual dismal failure. We should envisage that school authorities, through the faculty of student affairs could cook up fictitious lists of loan applicants with fake matric numbers just to divert funds. Officials of the Bank of Education themselves can grant loans to their cronies and make it all evaporate like a bad debt. The ministry of education can politicise the loan procedure through the use of NUC (Nigeria University Commission).

In a case where NUC gets politically entangles with the Bank of Education, the effervescence effect is that, the much advertised university autonomy and academic freedom being propagated by ASUU would become more compromised. This is one of the reasons I wrote elsewhere that . .  . .”federal government should allocate/grant some oil wells, with a reasonable start-up capital to ASUU in order that higher education might be properly funded; while university autonomy shall materialise automatically as a result of financial independence.

Apart from the avalanche of ‘prebends’ that will systematically corrupt the operationalization of the student loan programme, various public school authorities are earnestly waiting in the wing to exploit the scheme by hiking school fees. Many university councils shall justify such move by correctly claiming that successive government have largely neglected a long overdue university funding.

Divergent opinions have flooded the mainstream media ever since Mr president signed the Bill for student loan. Some said, the programme is a gimmick in the hands of experienced political psychologists to douse the palpable animosity seething in the youths across the country. Some see it as a flag designed to enrich some party loyalists. While some view it as a positive step and a feat that is worthy of appreciating its progenitor(s). 

Well, whatever the scheme represents in anyone’s mind is basically immaterial for now. All that is sacrosanct is for Nigerian students to benefit from the programme, and we should not allow too much of corruption to tear down such an idea. Does it sound unlike me to have priced down the amount of corruption in this wise? Politicians will have their ways whether we like it or not. 

Little wonder did Steven Pierce, in his ‘Moral Economies of Corruption: state formation and political culture in Nigeria’, (2016), opined that, “the best solution to combating Nigerian government corruption is not through attempts to prevent officials from diverting public revenue to self-interested ends, but to ask how public end can be served by accommodating Nigeria’s history of patronage as a fundamental political principle.

In my own view, the judgmental aspect of public policy analysis for the regime of Bola Tunubu is not yet due. We shall take whatever his government serves and that which is even not displayed as what it is for now. In the words of Yeheskel Dror, both that which a government does and did not do is still public policy.

ASUU STRIKE: One solution, numerous socio-economic cum political multiplier advantageous effects for the Nigerian state at large.

 

ASUU STRIKE: One solution, numerous socio-economic cum political multiplier advantageous effects for the Nigerian state at large.

By Kay Aderibigbe

kayaderibigbe@aol.com

 

One unique characterization of higher educational system, more like a cultural identity, in Nigeria,since the beginning of the Second Republic, is strike action. Incessant strike action by teachers of our public higher institutions is a resultant effects of irresponsible and primordial mentalities of those at the helms of our political affairs.

 

Considering the meaning of ASUU, via its ordinary nomenclature might make it symbolizes a trade association that is vested with the task of propagating solely the interests of its professional members. But a delve into the historical appraisal of ASUU’s struggle, travails and eventual wins, would lend more credence to the fact that, the organisation has in its DNA, more intrinsic elements of those pro-people bodies like: CDHR, CLO, NADECO and NLC, all put together. Since its formation in 1978, ASUU has stood up against any type of regime in defense of the people, society and education, as an inalienable right of an average person.

 

This piece could slightly be a long read. Kindly pardon the niceties that pervaded my harangue. I also plead for forgiveness in advance because I could sound offensive, confrontational or quite irritating to some people in some quarters. I chose the path of speaking the truth to power because, my generation, just like the ones ahead of us, is gradually becoming an archetype of the dismal failure expressive of the Nigerian state. I really don’t want to be identified as one of them, hence, my resolve to write again.

 

The last ASUU strike

 

The last ASUU strike lasted 252 days before it was eventually called off on Oct 14, 2022. Prior to the Court of Appeal’s ruling which upheld the decision of NICN – National Industrial Court of Nigeria, on the suspension of ASUU strike, there have been series of futile meetings/negotiations between ASUU and the ministry of education; the minister of education, Adamu Adamu; and the minister of labour and employment, Chris Ngige, who later borrowed a cue from Order 3, rule 6 of the TDA – Trade Dispute Act, cap T8. LFN 2004, to bundle ASUU into the Web of Industrial Court. The court has at its disposal, the instrument of Section 18(1) E of the TDA, to subdue every strike action. That is, . .. “employees cannot be on strike when their matter is before the Industrial Court”.

 

One then begins to wonder how a group of administrative inept who pervaded Buhari’s regime could cunningly dig up legal weapons against an association that has been beaten, defrauded and gang-raped time and time again, on the basis that it (ASUU) was trying to defend ‘education’ – the only value that is left of the carcass of the Nigerian state.

 

As it stand now, “there is no single agreement, written or verbal, between ASUU and the government before the last strike was called off” . . . (Prof. Emmanuel Osodeke, Monday 22 nd of Aug, 2022). Invariably, it was an act of display of good faith and sympathy for the teeming students of public universities that propelled ASUU to have acted honourably.

 

On Oct 5, 2022, the Federal Government had went ahead to announce the birth of two new academic unions – NAMDA (National Association of Medical and Dental Academics), and CONUA (Congress Of Nigerian University Academics). Edmund Burke, in 1756, said “only those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”. This type of shenanigans of infiltrating and dividing ASUU has been done in the past by Babangida and Abacha, yet, it failed woefully.

 

A historiography of ASUU’s struggle

 

Apart from the resistance by ASUU on the erosion of the disciplinary powers of the school governing councils, early days of ASUU’s emergence was quite less-tumultuous. For the sake students of politics, history enthusiasts and the new reactionary set of youths that are craving political change in the recent times, I think it is imperative that we throw more light on why ASUU usually embark on strike action in order to drive home their demands.

 

A better way to accurately capture the beginning of the serial impasse between ASUU and the federal government could be traced to 1981, when ASUU tabled before the Shagari’s government, what they called “the five disturbing issues”: (i) university funding, (ii) proper salary, (iii) autonomy, (iv) academic freedom and (v) the issue of brain drain. Mr. Shehu Shagari, the then president, responded by taking away the accreditation of university courses from seasoned professionals and gave the role to NUC – Nigerian University Commission. Another veritable issue was the ASUU’s national conference of 1984, and subsequently, its paper titled “How to Save Nigeria”. The same Muhammadu Buhari was the Head of federal military government in 1984, when an unreasonable and economically retarding policy was in place, then, called “austerity measure”.

 

A gradual disengagement of the state from certain essential services was the dynamo that triggered ASUU to write out solutions to the government-invented problems which later caused chaos in all aspects of national lives for Nigerians. Buhari was dethroned by Babangida, through a palace coup on Aug 27, 1985, and the new regime inherited an economic upheaval which made the government to opt for privatization policy.

 

ASUU kicked against privatization and instead, propagated solutions on economic planning, development, industrialization, agriculture, debt servicing, labour laws and taxation. Against ASUU’s erudition and the hue and cries of the general public concerning the IMF loan, Babangida, went ahead to impose SAP – Structural Adjustment Programme, on Nigerians in 1986. The policy brought an unprecedented hardship on the general populace. The negative economic effects became obviously telling on the government as well, because, the Elongated University Salary Scale (EUSS) of ASUU could not be implemented. As a result of SAP, intellectuals started jetting out of the country (brain drain). Many people lost their jobs. Naira was agonizingly devalued. Inflation rose astronomically and life became unbearable for the majority, most especially, salary earners.

 

ASUU went on strike in protest against the policy and the military government banned ASUU as an association on Aug 7, 1988. The then education minister Prof. Jubril Aminu, following the instructions of his pay masters, ordered the arrest of Dr. Attahiru Jega, and Dr. Festus Iyayi, both of them being the then present and past presidents of ASUU. In fact, their international passports were taken from them while they remained in detention. The strike broke down due to military highhandedness, but ASUU members continued to meet under the aegis of ULA (University Lecturers Association), in order to speak out on the dangers of Nigeria’s downward economic trend.

 

By 1990 ASUU got back its status as a legally recognized association. The lecturers requested audience with the government. The first negotiation under Senas Ukpanah, broke down on the 30th of May 1991. The second negotiation was unilaterally dictated by the military government. The same government failed to honour its own words. ASUU replied with a strike action. Consequently ASUU was banned for the second time by IBB on Aug 23, 1992.

 

Every concerned Nigerian was on ASUU’s side once again because the arbitrary method of the military schemers was quite glaring. Public shame prompted IBB to pocket his pride and eventually sought negotiation with the same ASUU that had been outlawed. That very point/meeting was the genesis of ASUU’s monumental request, from the government, of a time-tabled, revitalization/developmental fund. In those days, though, lecturers suffered a great deal, but education as a project won the battle. The power of collective bargaining spoke volume. Most importantly, the entire civilian populace became socially cognizant of the fact that, democracy is still achievable despite the indomitable posture of the military institution then.

 

The Sept 3rd , 1992 Agreement was not honoured by the Abacha’s government when he came to power, partly because ASUU identified with majority of Nigerians who asked for the de-annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential election. Even, when ASUU’s request was streamlined to merely  professional issues, Abacha still refused to reckon. Salaries were stopped. Vice Chancellors were financially induced to set up classes just in order to paint a wrong picture of ASUU. The six months strike was unilaterally ended by ASUU in response to the yearnings of the public.

 

Abacha’s education minister, Dr. Ibrahim .T. Linan, stirred up another negotiation table under Prof. Umaru Shahu, taking into account, the ‘peculiarities for setting up negotiation’, propounded through Sam Cookey’s commission. The federal military government handcuffed ASUU with the introduction of fees in our public schools, but ASUU rejected the idea. What later followed was a grand victimization of ASUU’s national executive committee members all over the country.

 

Almost all the ASUU leaders were removed from their positions by the NUC without trial. They all remained out of the system until, chief Olaiya Oni, the education minister under Gen. Abdulsalam, facilitated their reinstatement; along with those that were dismissed in 1996, through the application of Decree 17, of 1984. The minister was able to do this by obeying an Enugu High Court order that had been pronounced on the matter years before.

 

Gen. Abdulsalam did not tinker with ASUU nor fiddle with any of the pre-existing agreements. It would have been quite desultory if he did. This is because of the planned transient nature of his regime.

 

Obasanjo came to power in May 1999, as a civilian government with high hope on peoples’ minds that our education would be saved from the miasma of political despair. Chief P.C Asiodu enthusiastically chaired a committee that was set up by the government in order to deliberate on those issues listed in ASUU’s previous agreement. Dr. Assisi Asobie, ASUU’s president, laid bare everything at the meeting on Oct 26th, 1999. The government team went incommunicado, and did not return to the negotiation table until Aug 28th, 2000, when Baba Ayo Adebanjo, was commissioned by the government to finalize with ASUU on those issues that ought to have been settled.

 

The negotiators in this case concluded on 26% budgetary allocation for the education sector; basic salary; academic allowances; education tax fund; university funding; autonomy; and legal issues concerning NUC, JAMB and school governing councils. Obasanjo’s education minister, Dr Babalola Aborisade, tampered with the documents and eventually signed an adulterated version of the agreement on June 30, 2001. Any ASUU's reaction because the government’s representatives signed a doctored agreement would have amounted to a tale of ASUU’s leadership being labelled a skiver.

 

Under a considerable amount of time, the same government reneged on the same dubious agreement. The very treacherous disposition of the government led to another ASUU strike in 2003. An Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP), ordered that the strike action be stopped. ASUU obeyed, but president Obasanjo had a clandestine intention of imposing on the university system, what he called NUSIP – Nigerian University System Innovation Project. This is an idea doled out to him by the IMF. Obasanjo kept nursing the idea for two reasons. One, he had too much pride in him. Two, he lacks the capacity to think beyond how his predecessors had handled ASUU’s case.

 

With NUSIP wanting in the wing, Obasanjo aimed at breaking the central force of ASUU’s collective bargaining power. In the same vein, he mooted the introduction of fees into public higher institutions. He then signed into law in 2003, the University Miscellaneous Bill. He met with University VCs in Dec of the same year and ordered them to start charging fees at their various schools. All the shortcut taken by Obasanjo only exacerbated the problems. One of the reasons being that, Obasanjo offended the spirit of industrial democracy by disobeying the Aug 2005, Ilorin High Court who ordered the reinstatement of the 49 Uni Ilorin lecturers that were summarily dismissed in 2001.

 

Being a purveyor of macabre, Obasanjo appreciated every move that can prolong the disagreement between ASUU and the federal government. Hence, the smokescreen not to have any agreement signed becomes thicker. Less than a year before Obasanjo left office, precisely on Dec 14, 2006, his education minister, Dr . Oby Ezekwesili brought up ASUU/FGN negotiation committee under Pa Gamaliel Onosande. ASUU was led by its president, Dr. Abdulahi Sule-Kano. ASUU tendered a proposal clearly stating ‘what ought to be from the 2001 agreement stand point’. The government team left and returned to the discussion table forty days after. By Jan 11, 2008, when ASUU realized the “Ilorin 49” would not be reintegrated into the university system, they boycotted and did not return nor entertain any form of government’s misadventure until Aug 25, 2008.

 

After a whole lot of back and forth, ASUU and the government’s team finally agreed on some issues in 2009. The details was the harbinger of what is generally referred to the “2009 ASUU/FGN Agreement”. We may need to pick some salient issues from the agreement for proper analysis. By so doing, we shall arrive at a clearer understanding of why ASUU kept insisting that the federal government of Nigeria must honour their own words.

 

The 2009 ASUU/FGN Agreement.

 

The agreement is a 51-paged, six chapters, detailed, unambiguous and self-explanatory matters that would have seamlessly transformed the university system in Nigeria if applied. The circumference around which the agreement was built involved four main criteria. One, condition of service. Two, university funding. Three, university autonomy and academic freedom. Four, other matters relating to the advancement of the higher education system in Nigeria.

 

The agreement clinically takes care of how university lecturers would be let off the ‘hook of redtapism’ that characterizes salary payment of civil servants. University Transparency and Accountability Solution (UTAS), was espoused, by the negotiators, as the mechanism through which brain drain could be seriously curtailed. All the relevant laws that encumbered university autonomy and academic freedom was expressly set out to be repealed or redefined.

 

Above all, the idea of a revitalization fund was explicitly stated. This, being the need to “remedy the deficiencies” that are inherent in the university system. For instance, between 2009 and 2019, a sum of #4.5 trillion naira shall be injected into federal universities at three intervals. The amount required by state owned universities was also spelt out, and even, broken down piece by piece to the level of per student basis. E.g a student at a state owned university shall require a sum of #3,680,000 between the periods of 2009 and 2011.

 

In order to making “Nigeria a knowledge-based society that will be able to compete and survive in the 21 st century”, according to the agreement, the entire education sector requires massive funding at all levels. Hence, the resolve of the progenitors of the agreement to recommend 26% annual budgetary allocation to education as extrapolated in the UNESCO benchmark for ‘normal countries’.The 26% in Nigeria’s case shall be shared 50/50 between the university system and other levels of education; with the hope that the 2010 budget shall feature such development.

 

It is quite inconceivable that, not even at least, one of the presidents of Nigeria’s democratic era would deem it appropriate to consider working out something meaningful with ASUU’s perennial requests. Rather, what we keep experiencing is the fabrication of schemes, tactics and laws that would gag up, weaken and eventually destabilize ASUU. If the financial resource needed to fund education is too much, how come the federal government of Nigeria could afford #6.5 trillion as petroleum subsidy for the year 2023 alone?.

 

What then could be done by the government of Nigeria in order to address ASUU’s demand? Government officials do not see any feasibility in devoting certain amount of money to ASUU’s cause. Well, probably because there won't be any kickbacks; and prebendalism is not allowed when ASUU acts. If that is the case, why can’t government give the university administrators, as a body, certain inexhaustible material resources which could be employed for the purpose of meeting their financial obligations.

 

Possible Solution to ASUU’s demands.

 

In my own view, if we give ASUU’ some oil wells, with some reasonable amount of money as start-up capital, the question of ‘funding of university education’ will be resolved once and for all.

 

There are a total of 159 oil fields and 1,481 wells in Nigeria today (Dept. Of Petroleum Resources, 2022). The new PIA – Petroleum Industry Act, still vests in the president of Nigeria, the power to grant ownership of oil blocs according to his discretion. No one should tell me ASUU cannot judiciously fund universities with oil money directly under its care. This is a country where private individuals are in control of oil wells instead of state governments. The Nigerian type of federalism is the only type of its kind in the whole world. Our peculiarities are simply unique to us alone.

 

Over the years, many political solutions have been mooted on ASUU's issue. Sincerely, none of these would-be-solutions can single-handedly take care of the important problem of ‘funding’ if the stream(s) of financial resources to manage higher education cannot flow unhindered. Behavioural solutions to other cogent questions of university autonomy and academic freedom will naturally happen as by-products of the financial autonomy that would ensue when ASUU gets to work and produce the wealth needed to facilitate itself.

 

This is what I term ‘Higher Education Management Enterprises of Nigeria’ (HEMEN). ASUU has more than enough human resource that can optimize the use of the oil wells to create a financial pool of wealth. This pool of wealth could be ploughed back into green energy production, agriculture and manufacturing. All that is needed is the will, commitment and sincerity of purpose that could be teleguided via robust accountability measures.

 

Each university in Nigeria has a vast expanse of lands; both arable and virgin lands. We have mass market. What, and where to produce is not the issue. How to produce is the question. For instance, a 15-year template of ‘oil-farming-manufacturing’ plan could be drawn up by ASUU. Having started with petroleum produce and oil, a larger percentage of revenue from oil business for the first five years should be channeled into agriculture. The first five years return from agriculture, and the preceding five years profit from oil venture can be put together for the establishment of factories for manufacturing locally consumables.

 

All of these may look complex and time consuming, but it is doable. This option, no matter how stressful, is far better than when ASUU waits for: handouts from government’s budgetary allocation, bail-out funds or collection of fees from the students of the same impoverished schools. In fact, reliance on any of the aforementioned means of revenue is tantamount to when someone stands inside a bucket while the same person is trying to lift up the same bucket by the handle.

 

If the HEMEN project becomes a success our story as a country can change within 20 years. So many jobs will be created for all classes of workers. Our education will become affordable; and even, have value more than before. Our lectures will have bragging rights; even, beyond our borders. Universities in Nigeria will attract foreign students, hence, more foreign exchange. Crime rate will reduce because youths will either acquire education or seek employment with the school-managed business outfits. Poverty will reduce substantially. Government will earn more taxes. More people will become socially aware of their economic personality and dignity of labour shall return.

 

As a matter of fact, our university lecturers are being underemployed, unappreciated and less revered. These people produced some of the mighty brains in the diaspora today. These learned fellows know so much about entrepreneurship, costing, business administration, petrochemical engineering and the international meliu. Let the government give them oil wells; give them start-up capital; don’t interfere, and watch in amazement how education will change Nigeria for good in the next 20 years.

BUHARI IS A PURVEYOR OF MACABRE WHO DOESN'T WANT FARMERS-HERDERS CONFLICT TO END ANYTIME SOON. (Kay Aderibigbe)

 

Nigeria, of recent mysteriously became a country that is uniquely in a league of its own. This awareness dawns on the people whenever they expect an action or authoritative statement from the commander-in-chief, but oftentimes, all they get to hear is "the presidency says . . . .". This made some of us, who do not indulge in speculations, purposely and reluctantly, to synonymize the term 'presidency' with the word 'president' in order that we might move on with our lives.  

The truth between these terms was eventually revealed on the 10th of June, 2021, when Arise Television, a media house based in Lagos, granted an exclusive interview to President Muhamadu Buhari; where he, Mr. Buhari, spoke in the manner that is typical of those that have been speaking on his behalf since 2015. 

The important question of Farmers-herders conflict asked Mr. Buhari by one of the presenters was answered with so much riddle wrapped up in an enigma. Having sarcastically and jokingly retorted that the interviewer wanted him to contradict his AGF- Attorney General of the Federation; the President then went into an obviously inconsequential and unconnected illustration to justify his answer. 

A simple breakdown of Mr. Buhari's reply on how Nigeria government can nip in the bud the menace of the gun-wielding Fulani herders is that, he tasked the state Governors to conjure or invent the powers they do not have; whereas, such exercise will simply exacerbate the current security crisis. What is the fuss about cattle rearing business and why are the herders always at loggerheads with the farmers? Why the incessant crisis? What is the mystery behind this national question?.

For the sake of good governance, students of politics and those whose right to study history has been taken away, we may need to dissect the issue of Farmers-herders crisis in order that my readers can understand the problem and infer from my analysis: who has the right to say what and to what extent, on the perennial problem of Farmers-herders crisis.

Let's start with the evolution of the concept of grazing reserves/routes and how it became an issue of concern. Originally, grazing reserves were areas earmarked for the feeding of cattle by the Fulanis who conquered and ruled Northern Nigeria. This concept received the colonial government's attention in 1950, when Mr. Hamisu Kano put forward an idea which became known as the 'Fulani Amenities Proposal' in 1954.  

Ten years later, the federal government had, in the name of the proposal, gazetted 3.4 million hectares of forest reserves in Sokoto, kabba, Bauchi, Zaria, Katsina and Ilorin as grazing reserves (Hector and oladunjoye,1970).  Semiarid zones of the present day Zamfara, and Wase, in plateau state, were also captured in the forest reservations of the grazing plan.  

All efforts to improve the Fulani man’s welfare through the transformation of the herd business culture informed Northern Nigeria’s Law no 4 of 1965 which gave birth to the Grazing reserve Laws of Northern Nigeria (Fatai Rotimi A. Williams, 1969). The totality of the government's investment in establishing land security for nomadic Fulani settlement was contained in all the development plans executed by the General Yakubu Gowon’s administration(1966 -1975). 

Despite the magnitude of government’s commitment towards the sedentarization of the nomadic pastoralists, the Fulanis couldn’t attain equilibrium in their productivity; follow the tide of time of modernization and change their mentality; nor ensure self-sustainability of the facilities contained in the grazing reserves acquired and developed by the government  which was later handed over to them. 

One of the veritable cases was that of the Wase Grazing Reserve, established in Plateau state, in 1965, which has 74,000 hectares capacity; all facilities inclusive -school, market, hospital e.t.c. This vast land was overwhelmed in 1975, due to the failure of the land tenure scheme (Hurumi in Fulfulde language); despite the joint venture of the Federal government of Nigeria and U.S.A.I.D. Abandonment of grazing facilities also happened in Sokoto, Bauchi and other places across the country.

Another problem with the said gazetted grazing routes is the failure of the government to secure legal title and fair compensation for the indigenous land owners. I explained this important problem elsewhere, in 2019,in an article titled "Farmers-herders crisis: one of the agonizing features of a dysfunctional state", where I highlighted that . . . "Politicians stole the compensation money meant for the indigenous land owners,re-appropriated the same grazing reserves to themselves as farm lands and also declared that pastoralists have routes for cattle in places where there were and places where there was none." 

Each time pastures dried up in the reserves, herders wander into agricultural farmlands in order to ensure the survival of their stock. Also,due to overpopulation and land scarcity, there has definitely been some incursions into the reserves over the years by some agronomists. Some of which are original\indigenous land owners who were robbed by the state in the name of the Grazing Reserves, while some of them are new farmers whose old vocations were rendered unlucrative due to economic retrogression.  Apparently, there will be confrontation between agronomists and pastoralists in this manner.  

Against the above backdrop, the Land Use Act of 1978, in connection to other land tenure problematic factors made certain, without ambiguity, in Sec 2(1) (a) and (b) that, "the management and control of all lands in urban areas is under the sole control of the Governor of each state". Having clarified earlier that the Grazing Reserve Law was birthed in the North and was meant for the Northerners, it then becomes imperative that we expatiate the position of the Land Use Act in relation to the President’s statement and herdsmen overlordship of lands in Nigeria, viz-a-viz the Asaba Declaration of May 11, 2021 through which all the 17 Governors of Southern Nigerian unanimously banned open grazing in all the states of the South.  

Mr. Buhari, who resorted to asking his unintelligent Attorney General of the Federation to dig up old gazette did not know much about the treachery and frauds with which some of the acquired grazing reserves were established nor did he understood the details of the Northern Nigerian Grazing Reserve Law and its limitations. Little wonder he spewed political venom and created more confusion instead of reasoning along the line of cultural emancipation of ranching that sought to ameliorate the lot of the Fulani herdsmen. 

Since the ideas of Cow Colony, RUGA – Rural Grazing Areas, and the National Grazing Reserve (Establishment) Bill of 2017 were all defeated on the floor of the National Assembly, Mr. Buhari thought the gazetted lands would host his brainchild, i.e. the idea of NLTP - National Livestock Transformation Plan, in all the states of the federation. This is absolutely unrealistic because only the North is subject to the grazing law which could be exploited for this purpose. Moreover, the Land Use Act in Sec 28(2)(b) talks about the condition under which the federal government can acquire land. In addition to this, Sec 51(1)(a) - (h) explains in detail the meaning of 'to put land to public use' and it does not, via any wording, mean, to exclusively appropriate land for a particular section of the Nigerian society and their private businesses.

In fact, if by the virtue of admonition of peace and national tolerance, some Southern states are willing to allow the NLTP, there is an illuminator in that regard, i.e. the Land use Act which already made an irrefragable provision in Sec 6(2) that "no single customary right of occupancy shall be granted respect of an area of land in excess of 500 hectares if granted for agricultural purposes, or 5,000 hectares if granted for grazing purposes". 

Summarily, the manner in which the federal government of Mr.Buhari is going about the issue of farmers and herders leaves so much to be desired. looking at the enormity of landed resources and availability of hundreds of thousands of hectares in the North, why is Mr. Buhari bent on stuffing the already overwhelmed and overpopulated South with those aggressive and chronic conservative nomads who are known for violence and land trespassing?  

For instance, the Global Terrorism Index Report (2020), puts it clear that, herdsmen killed about 2,400 people between January and November. Over 300,000 people have been displaced; while more middle-aged people are injured casualties of these attacks within that same period. This is rather unacceptable, ungodly and totally unhealthy for the political and economic well being of any progress seeking society.

This matter is generic; it is volatile, and it is an important problem that should be handled seriously by the governors of Southern Nigeria and all lovers of democracy so that tyranny would not triumph against the wishes of the people.  

As long as Mr. president couldn't proffer a lasting solution to the issue of farmers-herders conflict, but rather stands as a stumbling block to those who are trying to ensure there is peace and progress; it means, President Buhari is either a trouble maker, an irredentist ethnic jingoist, whose action doesn’t make him any better than the so called secessionist agitators he criticizes today. Or he is either a secret missionary who doesn't want the herders-farmers conflict to end probably because he needs the instrument of crisis or societal unrest to propagate a sort of preconceived negative social re-engineering in order to actualize a certain hidden personal agenda. 

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COWS, TRAVESTY OF GOVERNANCE, AND INSECURITY IN NIGERIA

 

 

The business of cow herding predates Nigeria, so also the farmers-herders disputes. In fact, it was partly due to this reason that the Grazing Reserve Law of Northern Nigeria, No 4 of 1962 was bundled into ​the 1963 Republican constitution. Basically, it was meant to encourage the sedentarization of the nomadic pastoralists (mostly Fulanis) through legally secured titles, but unfortunately, the law was haphazardly and fraudulently promulgated by politicians who allocated lands to themselves. 

 

 

It is imperative I lay bare some points on the issue of criminality, impunity, threat to security, the slarking and gradually tearing apart social fabrics of the Nigerian state for everyones' discernment. Whether this piece is objective or not will simply depend on the logical and inferential capacity of each and every reader. Though, it is a long read but a trial at reading further might prompt one to read more of it.

 

 

To start with, the failure of the political elites to sincerely operate and adhere to those legal frameworks guiding the conduct of cow business, as exemplified in the bastardization of Grazing Law Act was the genesis of farmers-herders clashes. What should we expect when a cowboy is told that he has a grazing route from Dutse to Ankpa or from Birni-Kebbi to Asaba, whereas, the indigenous owners of these routes were never compensated, apparently, there will be crisis between the nomads and the land owners.

 

 

Politicians may not feel obligated to regulate cattle movements simply because of the 'issue of ownership'. Who owns the majority of these cattle? The opacity of cow business has made many Nigerians to fall for the factoid that 'it is a non-elitist or low profile business'. Contrary to this view, politicians, military chiefs, high cadre civil servants and wealthy stakeholders, mostly of Northern Nigerian extract invest in cattle business. What normally holds is that a herd of 10,000 cattle for instance could be shared among various herders through a Sarkin Fulani who stands as the front for the real owners of the business whose interest is simply informed by nothing but profits.

 

 

The logic behind this business is that the real owners remain invisible in order to be able to evade tax, avoid corporate social responsibilities, and above all, to shield the face of the volume of capital that is involved. Let's take 10,000 cattle at the rate of 200k each into consideration, that's N2b. How possible is it for a parliamentarian or a military chief who could not legitimately earn 5% of such an amount between a period of 2 to 5 years to suddenly come up with that volume of capital?
That means the source of capital for cow business is shady hence the need to keep it in the dark from the understanding of the general public.

 

 

The invisible owners of these cows who are always at the helms of affairs in the military, civil service, legislature or federal executive bodies and are invariably the invisible reasons Fulani cattle herders could wield deadly weapons like AK-47 rifles; trespass on farmlands; act aggressively and kill farmers who dare to challenge them. An order from the top to release Fulani herdsmen who might have been arrested on an account of criminal offence is commonplace within the police service as well. The implications of this on the larger society therefore are that herders become more emboldened, ruthless and condescending in their social relationships.

 

 

Did we wonder why all the hues and cries against the atrocities of those bad eggs among the cattle herders didn't yield any positive governmental action over the years? The invisible owners of the cows are the reason open grazing cannot be seriously banned. They are the reason ranching cannot evolve up till now. The real owners are behind the decision buttons of different governments at various eras, as such, they have frustrated policies that were geared towards the process of modernizing cattle rearing because such moves will expose them to paying taxes, it will make them observe social responsibilities, limit their access to cheap labour and above all, reveal the strength or extent to which they have accumulated ill-gotten capital.

 

 

When President Buhari came up with some erratic and paranoia policies such as: grazing routes, cow colonies, RUGA and inclusion of all inland water bodies in the exclusive legislative list, we understood it was all politics meant to buttress the business of cows. This same Mr Buhari has a ranch in Katsina state but he would rather enforce the imposition and propagation of cow colonies on those states that constitute Nigeria for free while the profits go into private pockets. In fact, Mr Buhari's​ obsession with the issue of localization of cows business actually made some people suspect the President has a sinister objective of using RUGA or cow colonies to change the demography of Nigeria.

 

 

The resultant effects of the bitter politics behind the economics of cattle business is that people who are saddled with the responsibilities of running the affairs of Nigeria at different capacities are selfish, greedy, wicked and highly inconsiderate to the extent that they have used their positions to create another brand of people out of an ethnic nationality which then makes the larger society to stereotypically label all the unit as evil. Little wonder did the leader of Miyetti Allah, Kautal Hore posited a few days ago that "Mr Buhari has done nothing for the Fulanis ​instead, he made more enemies for them" 

 

 

There was a revelation by rtd. Col. Tony Nyiam, a member of a national security discourse, who said that a larger percentage of the arms carried about by Fulani herdsmen, came from the Army and Police armoury according to the Director General of the State Security Services, Maman Daura, who is also himself a Fulani man. It was about the same time that President Buhari visited Donald Trump just to make an impression that the nomadic Fulani only carry sticks and not riffles. All these lies and cover-ups took place between 2016 and 2019, when there was a torid battle between the indigenous people of the Middle Belt zone of Nigeria and the Fulani herdsmen over ancestral lands.

 

 

The federal government of Nigeria failed to come up with any meaningful or lasting solution to the Middle Belt crisis. Instead, the anti-open grazing law, promulgated by the government of Benue state, where a greater degree of destruction was committed by Fulani herdsmen as at then, because they​ owned up to it, was eventually countered by a nationwide Federal Executive Order which says "all licensed guns, be it dane or automatic should be returned to the Nigerian Police".  When Nigerians called the attention of the federal government to the AK-47 being brandished by the Fulani herdsmen, the government replied that herdsmen who are dispersed in the forest could only be reached and informed of government's directives through the establishment of a Fulfude speaking Amplitude Modulation radio that will cost billions of naira. The said radio was fictitiously created on the frequency of 720 KHz.

  

 

Encouraging social vices by political authority in any form is such a dangerous thing to do because crime has the propensity to grow beyond expectations if left unchecked. The breakaway groups of fulani herdsmen who are into kidnapping and banditry these days do not know if government officials or a fulani owns a particular vehicle they want to attack on the highway. They care less if their next victim is a muslim or not. Once a vehicle is targeted, it will be sprayed to a halt. Whoever dies is immaterial to their mission as long as there are few others who could be taken away for profiling and ransom.

 

 

Chronic insecurity, like never before, is the bane of Nigeria for over a decade but the state has either been foolishly adept at politicizing it or making businesses out of it. Either way, the people were made to bear the brunt of such government ineptitude while the resultant effects could be seen in the ways livelihood within Nigeria is shattered and tacitly disarticulated. Despite the clamour by the Nigerian senate that Mr President should enforce an executive order and ban open grazing nationwide, the Governor of bauchi state, Bala Muhammed, still swung to the defence of herdsmen at the just concluded 2121 Press Week by declaring that "herdsmen only carry Ak-47 rifle in order to protect themselves against wild animals and cattle rustlers". The Governor didn't say a word on the killings of farmers, kidnapping, raping and conversion of indigenous peoples' ancestral homes to cattle settlements but was quick to blame the government for failing to protect a Fulani herdman against the hazards of his business as if all other legitimate businesses in Nigeria are risk-free and entirely cushioned by government subventions.

 

 

 

This is the current situation of Nigeria. We are in this mess due to three reasons. The first is the politics behind the business of cows; succinctly discussed above. The second is the multiplier effects of irresponsible governance (travesty of governance), and the activities of politicians to clinch powers at all cost; while the last reason is the issue of backward economy that must be addressed or else we continue to sink into deep mess.

 

 

A critical look at the second reason Nigeria is facing serious security challenges at the moment will reveal that the prevalence of banditry is not totally an offshoot of herdsmen brigandage or gangsterism, but also significantly due to the activities of politicians who confessed to have hired militia from neighbouring countries to prosecute the election which brought the government of Muhammadu Buhari to power in 2015.

 

 

One of the confidants of President Buhari, the current Governor of Kaduna state, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, claimed in 2018 to have paid a huge amount of money in order to send off the majority of those parading themselves as bandits in the North Western part of the country today. We were amazed at his action. Many asked "to where is he sending them after the pay off??". We didn't expect such a move because we assumed these elements are aboriginal to Nigeria and mere criminals who must have acquired arms​ in order to draw the attention of the same government who plunged them into age long penury.

 

 

The situation became clearer when Kawu Baraje, a onetime National Secretary of the opposition party PDP, who was also part of the founding members of the APC in 2015 explained that "those who are causing problems in Nigeria today are not the Fulani we have been living with for years, but those fulani herdsmen that were hired from various West African countries in order to facilitate victory for APC in the 2015 polls". We cannot completely discount Abubakar Baraje's assertion because President Muhammadu Buhari, in 2019, after being confronted with the question of influx of foreign Fulanis declared that his "government has granted no-visa requirements to any African who wanted to enter Nigeria". After this declaration, a member of Buhari's cabinet stated on National TV that "every fulani in any part of the word is a Nigerian​  by nature".  What else do we need to ascertain that foreign militias were shipped into the country for political reasons which has now backfired and degenerated to a security crisis?

 

 

Someone who didn't understand the root of this problem such as Sheik Ahmad Gumi has found himself at the opposing side of the negotiation table against one of the masterminders of the issue of banditry, Mr Nasir El-Rufai, who now leads the motion that 'bandits should be bombed at once' instead of granting them amnesty as touted by the Islamic scholar who likened bandits to Niger/Delta freedom fighters. To have compared banditry and militancy in Niger/Delta is not just totally out of place, but it is also a miscarriage of thought; most especially when it is done by one of those who normally speak the truth to the power like the Sheik. Any realist will simply agree with Mr El-Rufai's position in that the Governor must have been exhausted with the continuous secret demands​ of the bandits. In the real sense of it, no matter how bad Nigeria is littered with communities of criminals, nothing good can come out of paying criminals. This is because such an act will make them crave more money, continue to feel more entitled, drain the state, become more powerful, encourage more criminal elements to sprout out of the blue and invariably portray millions of law abiding citizens as fools.

 

 

The security situation of Nigeria today leaves so much to be desired. Fulani herdsmen remain a veritable dynamo that could trigger itself any time. Boko Haram waxes stronger because the sect makes money at almost every negotiation with the Nigerian government. The nexus between government officials and terrorism was established when the US government stated categorically in 2017 that they have stopped sharing Intel with the Nigerian government because whatever they tell our top government officials is being leaked to the terrorist group. Fulani herdsmen were thereafter labelled a terrorist group by the US government. We expected a stern action against insecurity from the Nigerian government in response but instead, a self-government agitating group of Eastern Nigeria origin was proscribed by the federal government. In the midst of these dilemmas arose the menace of banditry and kidnapping for ransom on the highway ways.

 

 

It is in a country like that of Nigeria where the government is either absent, silent, irresponsible or technically dead that the people only resort to self-help like we have in the case of Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba war Lord tagged activist who took up arms against criminals in defence of his people. Such action is a double-edged​ sword; it may attain the desired end for now, but it will bring about a negative ripple effect in the nearest future because it lacks authority and legitimacy no matter the amount of followership or acceptability it commands among the  people. Information Minister, Lai Muhammed, recently affirmed the deficit of trust embedded in Nigeria's government when he endorsed the meeting/negotiation between groups of bandits in Zamfara and Sheik Ahmad Gumi by foolishly genuflecting that ''criminals would easily believe the islamic scholar more than the Nigerian government".

 

 

A religious approach to resolving political matters that has socio-economic undertone cannot be entirely watered down, but it is important we learn from history in order not to repeat the same mistake. The roots of banditry as it is seen today could be significantly traced to Sharia law being championed by the people of Zamfara state. Little did the people know that the Governor then Sani Yerima, only used the law as a cover-up​ for his own planned grand theft and looting of the state treasury. The same line of reasoning is going on right now in Kano state where Hisbah Police simply usurp the duties of the conventional police force in order to brand the state as a Muslim type. It doesn't take a sociologist or a political scientist to predict that the actions of Hisbah police will successfully​ breed monsters that will later torment Kano state. Governor Umar Ganduje would have become history by then, but the people would suffer from the Leviathan they foolishly created. 

 

 

The very last reason we are enmeshed in deep security mess is because we have failed as a nation to organize reasonable, progressive and conducive economic, educational and social arrangements for our people. Banditry became a profession because those guys lack proper education while the majority of them are jobless. The same factors worked in favour of the Boko Haram sect who could always draw membership from the horde of idle, illiterate and religiously drunk populace of the North. This is why the exercise of deradicalizing, rehabilitating and reintegration of repentant Boko Haram members will continue to be a waste of resources and state perfidy. After all, the same repentants have been proven to be hard core terrorists by the Senate Committee chairman on Army, Muhammed Ali Ndume, who claimed that the recent attack on civilians at Damboa federal constituency of Borno state and other sof targets were aided and abetted by the so called repentant Boko Haram members.

 

 

Solution to the issue of insurity is not monothetic. Politicians must put the country first before any good thing can happen. Peace and security cannot fall from heaven. Ranching is a must and strictly a private business. Education is a must for any nation that wants civility. Gainful employment is a corollary to a balanced, diversified and organized economy. Apart from those macro security challenges, the country is faced with a myriad of other variants such as: highway robbery, cyber theft, baby factory, fake drugs/foods production and a host of daily petty threats to lives and property. These vices are on the increase due to factors that could easily be located within the causative factors of 'negative political leadership and economic failure'. How on earth can amnesty fix all these? How on earth can military actions put a stop to all these? Unless our leaders wake up from their illusive slumber and appreciate reality, the country will drift into complete anarchy ​and no tribe, religion, class or group will be able to save itself because all the means with which resolution/pacification could be attained would been exhausted as a result of the recklessness and irresponsibilities of those ethnic champions we hail in the name of politics of patronage today.