A former politician and public affairs commentator, Umar Ardo, Ph.D., has rejected what he described as the Middle Belt Forum’s (MBF) attempt to frame Nigeria’s land and livestock policy around ethnic ownership, insisting that no ethnic group has the constitutional authority to exclude fellow Nigerians from any part of the country.
Ardo was reacting to the MBF’s statement on the Federal Government’s cattle-ranching policy, which raised concerns about land acquisition, consultation, compensation and security.
In a detailed rebuttal, Ardo said those concerns were legitimate but argued that they should not be presented through what he described as a doctrine of ethnic territorial ownership.
According to him, the suggestion that parts of Adamawa, Taraba and Plateau are exclusively Middle Belt territories from which Fulani people are historical outsiders amounts to a distortion of the region’s complex history.
“The portrayal of Adamawa, Taraba and parts of Plateau State as exclusively indigenous Middle Belt territory from which Fulani people are historical outsiders is historical and political revisionism,” he said.
Ardo noted that Fulani communities have lived, farmed, traded, owned property and raised livestock in Adamawa and Taraba for generations alongside other ethnic groups.
He argued that Nigeria’s ethnic geography was never organised into permanently sealed territories, pointing to centuries of migration, trade, intermarriage, political changes and shifting boundaries.
“Modern societies live in citizenship, not in ethnicity,” Ardo said, warning that reducing Nigeria’s history to “our land” versus “their land” could deepen ethnic tensions.
Citizenship, Not Ethnicity
Ardo said the Constitution guarantees Nigerians the right to move and reside in different parts of the country, arguing that citizenship should take precedence over ethnic identity.
He cited Sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution, which provide for freedom of movement and prohibit discrimination on specified grounds, including ethnicity and place of origin.
“A Nigerian does not lose citizenship by moving, for example, from Sokoto to Plateau, Kano to Taraba or Adamawa to Benue,” he said.
According to him, no ethnic organisation has the constitutional authority to declare any part of Nigeria an exclusive preserve.
He warned that ethnic entitlement could fuel tension and violence if allowed to replace the principle of equal citizenship.
‘Criminal Responsibility Is Individual’
Ardo also took issue with what he described as the repeated association of the Fulani ethnic group with violence.
He criticised references to alleged “Fulani militias” in discussions about ranching, arguing that criminal responsibility should be attached to individuals or identifiable criminal organisations rather than entire ethnic groups.
“Crimes must be prosecuted against individuals or defined criminal groups—not attributed to entire ethnic identities,” he said.
He warned that abandoning that principle could lead to collective blame, where crimes committed by particular individuals or groups are wrongly attributed to entire ethnic communities.
Land Acquisition Must Follow Due Process
Despite his criticism of the MBF’s position, Ardo acknowledged that concerns over land acquisition were legitimate.
He stressed that no community or lawful landowner should be dispossessed without due process, adequate consultation where required and appropriate compensation.
“The real issue is therefore law, land tenure, compensation, environmental sustainability, security and public interest, but not ethnic identity,” he said.
Ardo argued that if the Federal Government’s ranching programme violates existing laws, affected parties should challenge it through the courts.
Similarly, he said disputes over inadequate compensation, consultation or land ownership should be resolved through established legal mechanisms rather than ethnic mobilisation.
Ranching Is an Economic Issue, Not an Ethnic Project
Ardo further argued that livestock development should be viewed primarily as an economic and agricultural policy rather than an ethnic project.
He noted that millions of Nigerians depend directly or indirectly on livestock production and its associated value chains, including animal husbandry, dairy production, meat processing, transportation, hides and skins, feed production and veterinary services.
According to him, modernising the livestock sector could create significant economic opportunities while addressing some of the conflicts associated with open grazing.
He said the proposed ranching policy should be assessed based on its economic viability, environmental impact, land requirements, security implications and benefits to communities—not on the ethnicity of potential beneficiaries.
Ardo maintained that a properly designed ranching system could help reduce farmer-herder conflicts by replacing unrestricted grazing with more organised livestock production.
He said such a policy could also stimulate investment in animal feed production, veterinary services, water infrastructure, meat processing and other components of the livestock value chain.
Wase and the Question of Land Rights
On the MBF’s concerns regarding the Wase area of Plateau State, Ardo said the grievances of local farmers and landowners deserved to be properly investigated.
“If local farmers oppose land allocation, their concerns must be heard. If elites are acting against landowners’ interests, the matter should be investigated,” he said.
However, he maintained that the appropriate response should be transparent consultation, lawful dispute resolution and protection of property rights rather than ethnic mobilisation.
He stressed that lawful ownership must be protected while citizenship rights must remain applicable to every Nigerian.
‘No One Can Exclude Fulanis From Nigeria’
Ardo said Nigerians have every right to oppose government policies, demand consultation and compensation, or challenge government decisions in court.
However, he drew a distinction between opposing a policy and opposing the presence of an ethnic group.
“It is legitimate to say: ‘We oppose this land policy,’ ‘We demand consultation and compensation,’ or ‘We will challenge this in court,’” he said.
“But it is not legitimate to state that the presence of Fulani citizens in certain areas is itself unacceptable.”
Ardo insisted that neither the Fulani nor any other Nigerian ethnic group should require ethnic permission to live and work in any part of the country.
He argued that Adamawa, Taraba, Plateau, Kaduna, Benue, Nasarawa and the Federal Capital Territory are all multi-ethnic areas shaped by migration and overlapping histories.
“No part of Nigeria, including the Middle Belt, is ethnically exclusive,” he said.
‘Land Belongs to Lawful Owners; Nigeria Belongs to All Nigerians’
Ardo called on the Federal Government to ensure that its livestock policy complies with the law, protects existing landowners, provides fair compensation where applicable and involves affected communities in accordance with legal requirements.
He also urged authorities to ensure that criminal suspects are prosecuted individually, regardless of ethnicity, while displaced Nigerians should be allowed to return to their communities when security conditions permit.
He concluded that Nigeria’s long-term stability depends on strengthening constitutional citizenship rather than promoting ethnic territorial claims.
“Land belongs to lawful owners; the country belongs to all Nigerians,” Ardo said.
“The challenge is not determining which ethnic group owns Nigeria, but building a country in which no Nigerian requires ethnic permission to live anywhere in it.”
Barr Ephraim Danladi: A RESPONSE TO DR. UMAR ARDO
CITIZENSHIP, LAND RIGHTS AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF JUSTICE
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 develo