Why the Right of Every Nigerian to Live Anywhere Does Not Mean the Right to Occupy or Use Land Without Lawful Authority

By Chief/Barr. Joshua Danladi Ephraim
I have read with considerable interest the intervention attributed to Dr. Umar Ardo concerning the Middle Belt Forum’s position on the Federal Government’s ranching policy.
I find much in Dr. Ardo’s intervention with which I agree.
Indeed, I believe that some of his fundamental propositions ought to be affirmed without qualification.
No ethnic group owns Nigeria.
No Nigerian citizen should be treated as a foreigner in any part of Nigeria merely because of his ethnicity.
No ethnic organisation has the constitutional authority to declare any part of Nigeria permanently closed to citizens of another ethnic group.
Criminal responsibility is individual and must not be transferred to an entire ethnic population.
And the right of every Nigerian to move freely and reside in any part of Nigeria is constitutionally protected.
Section 41 of the Constitution guarantees the right of every Nigerian citizen to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof. Section 42 further prohibits discriminatory treatment on grounds including ethnic group and place of origin.
These are principles which I fully support.
But I respectfully submit that these important propositions do not answer the whole question before Nigeria.
They answer one question:
Who is entitled to belong to Nigeria?
They do not, by themselves, answer another:
Who is entitled to possess, occupy, acquire or use a particular parcel of land, and under what law?
That distinction is at the heart of the present controversy.

1. CITIZENSHIP IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LAND OWNERSHIP

The proposition that Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians is unquestionably correct.
But it does not follow that every parcel of land in Nigeria belongs simultaneously to every Nigerian.
There is an essential distinction between:
the right to be a Nigerian citizen;
the right to move and reside in Nigeria;
the right to acquire property lawfully;
and
the right to occupy or use a particular parcel of land.
The first is a question of citizenship.
The second is a constitutional right.
The third is subject to law.
The fourth is governed by the applicable land-tenure regime.
The Constitution does not give any Nigerian citizen an unrestricted right to walk onto another person’s farm, settlement, grazing land or property and use it for his own economic purpose.
Nor does citizenship give government an unrestricted power to take land belonging to or lawfully occupied by other Nigerians for the benefit of another citizen.
This is the distinction which, in my respectful view, needs to be brought more clearly into the present debate.

2. “LAND BELONGS TO LAWFUL OWNERS; NIGERIA BELONGS TO ALL NIGERIANS”

Dr. Ardo’s own formulation is instructive:

“Land belongs to lawful owners; Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians.”

I agree.
But the first part of that sentence is as important as the second.
The Land Use Act provides that land comprised in each State is vested in the Governor, to be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of Nigerians in accordance with the Act. It also provides different mechanisms for the control and management of urban and non-urban land and recognises rights of occupancy and compensation in appropriate circumstances.
The Governor, therefore, is not the beneficial owner of State land in the ordinary sense.
He is a trustee within the statutory framework.
And trusteeship carries responsibilities.
The Governor cannot properly be understood as possessing the land for his personal benefit, nor as having an unrestricted power to distribute it according to political, ethnic or sectional preference.
The same principle must apply to every public authority.

3. THE MIDDLE BELT QUESTION IS NOT “CAN FULANI LIVE HERE?”

That is not the question.
A Fulani Nigerian has every right to live in Kaduna, Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa, Taraba, Adamawa, Abuja or anywhere else in Nigeria, subject to the law.
The question is:
Under what legal conditions may he acquire land, establish a ranch, graze cattle, bring livestock into an area, establish commercial infrastructure and operate a livestock business?
Those are entirely legitimate questions.
They are not questions of ethnic exclusion.
They are questions of law.
They are questions of property.
They are questions of agriculture.
They are questions of environmental management.
They are questions of public expenditure.
They are questions of security.
They are questions of federalism.
And, above all, they are questions of justice.

4. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND COMMERCIAL LAND USE

A Nigerian citizen may move from Sokoto to Kaduna.
He may move from Kano to Plateau.
He may move from Adamawa to Benue.
He may move from Taraba to the Federal Capital Territory.
Nothing in the Constitution should prevent that merely because of his ethnicity.
But it does not follow that his movement automatically gives him a right to appropriate land for commercial use.
A farmer from Kaduna who moves to Adamawa cannot simply occupy another citizen’s farm.
A businessman from Lagos cannot simply take land in Plateau because he is a Nigerian.
A cattle owner from the Core-North cannot simply move his cattle into cultivated land in the Middle Belt and claim that freedom of movement gives him a right to graze there.
The same law must apply to everybody.
Citizenship gives us the right to belong.
The law determines the rights by which we possess and use land.

5. THE HISTORICAL GRAZING RESERVES CANNOT SIMPLY BE TREATED AS SETTLED ASSETS

This is where the historical dimension of the controversy becomes unavoidable.
Many of the grazing reserves in the former Northern Region were created during an entirely different constitutional and political era, including the period of the Northern Regional Government under the late Sir Ahmadu Bello.
The important issue today is not to reopen history merely for the purpose of assigning ethnic blame.
The issue is to determine the present legal status of those lands.
Were the lands lawfully acquired?
What was the legal instrument of acquisition or designation?
What interests did the affected communities possess at the time?
Were those interests extinguished?
Was compensation payable?
Was compensation paid?
What are the boundaries today?
Who currently occupies the land?
What rights have arisen since then?
These questions cannot be answered merely by saying:

“There has always been a grazing reserve there.”

Historical designation does not, by itself, answer every question about present legal entitlement.

6. THE MIDDLE BELT’S GRIEVANCE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS ETHNIC TERRITORIALISM

There is a danger in reducing every Middle Belt objection to the slogan of “our land versus their land.”
That would be unfair.
A community may object to a government land policy without claiming that Nigerians of another ethnic group have no right to live among them.
A community may demand compensation without demanding ethnic exclusion.
A community may oppose a government ranch without opposing Fulani citizens.
A community may insist on consultation without denying citizenship.
A community may challenge a land acquisition in court without declaring another ethnic group unwelcome.
These distinctions matter.
Indeed, they are essential if Nigeria is to escape the trap of ethnic absolutism.

7. THE PROBLEM OF THE MIDDLE BELT IS ALSO A SECURITY QUESTION

The present livestock crisis cannot be examined in the same way as it might have been examined fifty or sixty years ago.
Nigeria is now confronting terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, displacement and widespread insecurity across several parts of the country.
The Middle Belt has been particularly affected by violent farmer-herder conflicts.
Therefore, when government proposes permanent livestock infrastructure in a conflict-sensitive area, the affected communities are entitled to ask:
Will this improve security or worsen it?
Who will control the facility?
Who will finance it?
Who will provide security?
Who will benefit from it?
What happens if surrounding communities object?
These are reasonable questions.
They should not automatically be characterised as ethnic hostility.

8. THE CORE-NORTH AND THE MIDDLE BELT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED

There is another distinction which is often lost in public discussion.
The principal livestock-producing areas of Nigeria’s dry-savannah Core-North are not identical to the conflict-affected Middle Belt.
The present controversy is substantially about the movement of livestock from major livestock-producing areas into areas where intensive agriculture, population density, competing land uses and insecurity have created severe conflict.
Nor is the movement necessarily exclusively internal.
Livestock movements can cross national borders within the wider West African pastoral system.
Consequently, Nigeria requires a national livestock-management system capable of dealing with:

domestic livestock production;

interstate movement;

cross-border movement;

livestock identification;

animal health;

disease control;

grazing management;

ranching;

markets;

security; and

liability for damage.

This cannot be reduced to an argument about whether Fulani citizens should be allowed to live in the Middle Belt.

9. RANCHING IS AN ECONOMIC QUESTION

Dr. Ardo is also correct that livestock production is an economic activity.
But that proposition has an important consequence.
If livestock production is an economic activity, then it should be organised as a modern commercial industry.
The owner of a commercial herd should reasonably be expected to provide:

land;

water;

feed;

veterinary care;

fencing or appropriate containment;

labour;

transportation;

insurance;

disease control;

security;

marketing arrangements; and

compensation for damage caused by his livestock.

This is not discrimination.
It is commercial responsibility.
A cattle owner should not be required to abandon his business.
But neither should a farmer be required to subsidise that business by losing his crops.

10. THIS IS WHY OPEN GRAZING MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PASTORALISM

There is an important conceptual distinction here.
Pastoralism is not the enemy.
Fulani people are not the enemy.
Cattle are not the enemy.
The problem is an economic and land-use model in which livestock can move without effective control across land used by other citizens.
Nigeria must therefore distinguish between:
the pastoralist as a citizen;
the cattle owner as an entrepreneur;
and
open grazing as a method of livestock production.
The first two deserve protection under the law.
The third should be regulated and progressively replaced by modern systems of ranching and managed livestock production.

11. WHY THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE IS RELEVANT

The United States provides a useful comparative lesson—not because Nigeria should copy American law wholesale, but because the United States also confronted the conflict between livestock production, competing land uses and uncontrolled grazing.
The American response included the development of a permit-based system of regulated grazing on public rangelands.
The important principle is:
access to grazing is regulated, defined and conditional.
It is not an unlimited entitlement.
Nigeria can adapt that principle to its own circumstances.
Commercial ranching should therefore operate on the basis of:

lawful land rights;

defined boundaries;

registration;

livestock identification;

movement documentation;

environmental standards;

carrying-capacity limits;

veterinary requirements;

liability;

insurance; and

enforceable sanctions.

That is how an agricultural problem becomes a manageable commercial system.

12. GOVERNMENT MUST NOT TURN PRIVATE LIVESTOCK BUSINESS INTO ETHNIC PUBLIC ENTITLEMENT

This is perhaps the most important point.
Government has a legitimate role in developing agriculture.
It can provide roads.
It can provide veterinary laboratories.
It can support research.
It can provide water infrastructure.
It can facilitate credit.
It can establish livestock markets.
It can support disease control.
It can encourage private ranching.
But government must be extremely careful when public resources are used to establish permanent infrastructure for a particular commercial population in an area already affected by communal conflict.
The problem is not the ethnicity of the beneficiaries.
The problem is whether the policy creates a perception—or reality—of preferential public allocation of land and resources to one economic group at the expense of another.
Section 42 of the Constitution is particularly relevant because it prohibits government from according citizens a privilege or advantage, or subjecting them to a disability or restriction, by reason only of their ethnic group or place of origin.
The safest policy is therefore one that is:
ethnicity-neutral, commercially rational and legally transparent.

13. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO THE HISTORICAL GRAZING RESERVES?

I respectfully differ from any suggestion that the existing grazing reserves should simply be accepted as unquestionable assets for immediate redevelopment.
Their history must first be examined.
The Federal Government should undertake a comprehensive:
Historical, Legal, Cadastral and Compensation Audit
of the old grazing reserves.
That audit should establish:

the original legal basis of each reserve;

its precise boundaries;

the communities and persons whose interests were affected;

the nature of those interests;

whether those interests were lawfully extinguished;

whether compensation was legally due;

whether compensation was paid;

the present legal status of the land;

present occupation and competing claims; and

appropriate remedies where historical rights were unlawfully extinguished or compensation was not paid where legally required.

The remedies may include:
restitution, compensation, regularisation, negotiated settlement, community ownership or participation, or other remedies determined according to law.
Only after the legal position has been established should government determine the appropriate future use.
This is not anti-Fulani.
It is not anti-North.
It is not anti-ranching.
It is simply the rule of law applied to historical land questions.

14. A COMMUNITY MAY ALSO CHOOSE COMMERCIAL RANCHING

There is an important possibility which is frequently overlooked.
If a community’s legitimate interest in land is recognised or restored, there is no reason why that community cannot decide to use the land for commercial ranching.
It may:

operate a community ranch;

lease land to private investors;

establish a cooperative;

enter a public-private partnership;

establish a livestock-processing enterprise;

retain the land for agriculture; or

choose another lawful economic use.

That is genuine economic empowerment.
The critical difference is:
choice rather than imposition.

15. THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR EXCLUDING FULANI NIGERIANS

Let me make this absolutely clear.
I reject the proposition that Fulani Nigerians should be excluded from any part of Nigeria merely because they are Fulani.
A Nigerian citizen does not become a foreigner by crossing a State boundary.
Nor should any ethnic group be required to obtain the permission of another ethnic group before residing lawfully in Nigeria.
But the reverse proposition must also be rejected.
A citizen’s right to reside in Nigeria does not give him a right to dispossess another citizen of land.
A cattle owner’s right to own cattle does not give him a right to destroy another citizen’s crops.
A government’s power to pursue agricultural development does not give it a licence to ignore lawful land rights.
And the historical presence of members of an ethnic group in a territory does not automatically confer collective ownership of that territory upon the ethnic group.
Citizenship is individual.
Rights are individual and legally defined.
Criminal responsibility is individual.
Land rights must likewise be established according to law.

16. THE PRINCIPLE I WOULD PROPOSE

The entire controversy can be reduced to one proposition:

No Nigerian should require ethnic permission to live anywhere in Nigeria; equally, no Nigerian should invoke ethnic identity as a justification for acquiring, occupying or using another Nigerian’s land without lawful authority.

And another:

Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians; but no individual Nigerian, ethnic group or government owns every piece of Nigerian land. Citizenship gives us the right to belong. The law determines our right to possess, occupy and use land.

These principles are not contradictory.
They are complementary.

17. WHAT NIGERIA NEEDS NOW

Nigeria therefore needs a national livestock law founded upon five principles:

FIRST:

Equal citizenship.
No ethnic exclusion.

SECOND:

Land justice.
No unlawful acquisition, occupation or use of land.

THIRD:

Commercial responsibility.
Livestock owners should bear the legitimate costs of livestock production.

FOURTH:

Modern ranching.
Nigeria should progressively move from uncontrolled open grazing towards ranching, managed grazing, feedlots and other modern livestock-production systems.

FIFTH:

Constitutional federalism.
The Federal Government should establish national standards while respecting the constitutional and statutory roles of States and other lawful land authorities.

18. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE

It is against this background that I support the preparation of a National Commercial Livestock Ranching and Grazing Regulation Bill.
The Bill should not be presented as:
an anti-Fulani Bill;
an anti-pastoralist Bill;
a Middle-Belt Bill;
or
a Northern exclusion Bill.
It should be presented as:
a national livestock modernisation Bill.
Its purpose should be to establish a system in which every Nigerian can participate in the livestock economy while respecting the rights of every other Nigerian.
It should establish:

ranching standards;

livestock identification;

traceability;

regulated livestock movement;

veterinary certification;

grazing permits;

environmental standards;

compensation for damage;

livestock liability insurance;

commercial ranching incentives;

historical grazing-reserve audits;

restitution and compensation mechanisms where legally justified;

community participation;

safeguards against ethnic settlement schemes;

and transparent public financing.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Ardo is right about one fundamental proposition:
No Nigerian ethnic group can claim Nigeria as its exclusive territory.
I fully support that principle.
But I would add an equally important proposition:
No Nigerian citizen can invoke citizenship as a licence to use another Nigerian’s land without lawful authority.
The two propositions must stand together.
Nigeria cannot be governed by ethnic territorialism.
But neither can it be governed by a theory of citizenship that ignores land rights, property rights, community interests, constitutional federalism and the rule of law.
The answer is neither:
“This is our land; you cannot come here.”
Nor:
“Nigeria belongs to everybody; therefore government may put livestock infrastructure wherever it chooses.”
Both propositions are wrong.
The correct position is:
“You are a Nigerian. You have the right to live and work anywhere in Nigeria, subject to law. I am also a Nigerian. I have the right to the protection of my lawful interest in land and property. Neither of us is above the law.”
That is the constitutional settlement Nigeria needs.
And that is why the debate must move beyond ethnic confrontation and towards a modern commercial livestock regime.
The cattle owner should be able to ranch.
The pastoralist should be able to live with dignity.
The farmer should be able to farm without fear.
The community should have its lawful land rights protected.
The State should administer land according to law.
The Federal Government should establish national standards and facilitate economic development.
And no commercial enterprise—whether owned by a Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Tiv, Jukun, Gbagyi, Atyap, Bajju, Ham, Kataf, or any other Nigerian—should be permitted to externalise its costs onto another citizen.
That is not ethnic politics.
That is justice.
And that is the meaning of:

THE GEOGRAPHY OF JUSTICE

Peace is not merely the absence of conflict.
Peace is the presence of justice.