The National Grazing Bill; To Serve or Not to Serve

It is a good thing that the Senate has declared that the National Grazing Reserve Establishment Commission Bill is not before it. It further declared that the Bill which was presented by Senator Zainab Kure {Niger North} during the 7th senate {2011-2015} has expired by operations of law.

A lot has been said about the said Bill. Currently, this Bill has stirred up great concern, worry and postulations by Nigerians at large because of its provisions, implication and sensitivity.

The Bill which is fully cited as “AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL GRAZING NRESERVE {ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT} COMMISSION FOR THE PRESERVATION AND CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GRAZING RESERVES AND STOCK ROUTES AND OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH”.

Having read some parts of the Bill, I find it rather worrisome that a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria sponsored such a Bill which its long term effects would have been tearing Nigeria apart and causing more chaos than we already have in the nation today. My focus would be on the provisions that call for concern, which this write-up would focus on. Such provisions include inter-alia;

1. The Bill provides for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as National Grazing Reserve Establishment and Development Commission {hereinafter referred to as THE COMMISION}
2. It also designates the following lands as possible National Grazing Reserves and Stock Routes;
• Lands at the disposal of the Federal Government of Nigeria
• Any lands in respect of which it appears to the Commission that grazing in such land should be practiced.
• Any land acquired by the Commission through purchase, assignment, gift or otherwise howsoever
3. The Bill went further to also provide that no court of law shall carry about execution of its judgement or attachment of court process issued against the Commission in any action or suit without obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General of the Federation.

The fundamental Issue for determination here is;
a. What purpose{s} does the aforementioned Bill seek to serve?
Addressing this issue, let us first of all take a cursory look at some of the general purpose of laws;

An excerpt I came across reads thus: in a free society, each and every man lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men. Such a rule of law has only one purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed- the individual.
Another purpose of law is to establish standards required for maintenance of Order in a civil society.

Most importantly, law seeks to protect rights, liberties of citizens. “a purpose and function of law is to protect these various liberties and rights from violation or unreasonable intrusions by persons, organizations, or government

Placing the above purposes of law, side by side with the above mentioned Bill, can one say that the provisions of this National Grazing Reserve Bill is protecting every single individual in Nigeria, OR does it establish standards required for maintenance of Order in a civil society, OR does it seek to protect rights and liberties of citizens of Nigeria???
The clear answer to all of the above questions would be a resounding NO.

A Bill that empowers a Commission to take away any land it deems is fit for the purpose of grazing reserve or stock routes is obviously not protecting any individual because every individual in Nigeria would then live in the fear of their land being taken away. It suffices to say that this Bill seeks to create an unchallengeable leviathan. The Bill also provides that compensation would be given to any individual that their land is taken away by the Commission. However, the Bill has failed to define the compensation payable and what would suffice as a reasonable compensation in any circumstance.

Furthermore, the Bill does not create any standard required for maintenance of order in a civil society. While creating and maintaining grazing reserve and stock routes is applaudable, as this might help reduce the tribal clashes between the Fulani herdsmen and several villages, the mode of creating such seems wrong to me. It is a trite principle that you do not correct an aberration with an aberration. The power given to the Commission is too wide and no provision has been laid down by the Bill for measuring the extent, limiting or preventing abuse of the powers conferred on the Commission by the Bill. Whatever is not measured would be abused.

Finally, citizens’ rights and liberties are clearly not respected or protected by this bill. Apart from the fundamental rights provided by Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Land Use Act, 2004 also makes provisions for the ownership of land by individuals.this Bill has come to limit or infringe on citizens’ rights and liberties.

Finally, a Bill which states that no court of law shall carry about execution of its judgement or attachment of court process issued against the Commission in any action or suit without obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General of the Federation, does not respect or uphold the rule of law. If the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation is required before the judgement of the court can be executed, that would end up rendering judgements of the our courts nurgatory, thereby usurping the functions of the judiciary.

In conclusion, while trying to be objective in my reasoning, it is actually challenging for one not to think that this Bill would be favorable to Northern Region and detrimental to the rest of Nigeria. If Senator Zainab Kure, the sponsor of the Bill has a modest and good intention, then I would recommend that a cue be taken from the TAYLOR GRAZING ACT OF 1934 in the United States of America. The Act provides thus;

“The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is authorized to establish grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated and unreserved land from any parts of the public domain, excluding Alaska, which are not national forests, parks and monuments, Indian reservations, railroad grant lands, or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, and which are valuable chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops.

The Secretary is authorized to issue permits to graze livestock in grazing districts to settlers,
residents and other stock owners upon the annual payment of reasonable fees. Permits must be for a period of not more than ten years, with renewal subject to the discretion of the Secretary, who shall specify numbers of stock and seasons of use.

Taking a cursory look at the above quoted provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act, 1934, it would be observed that only vacant, unappropriated lands and unreserved lands were to be designated as grazing districts. Also, permit must be gotten by settlers, stock owners which would give them the right to graze livestock in the grazing districts.

Our own National Grazing Reserve Establishment and Development Commission Bill would have served purpose if its provisions reflected the above provisions from the Taylor Grazing Act. It would have clearly served if its provisions were couched in similar terms with the Taylor Grazing Act.

As it stands now, the National Grazing Reserve Establishment and Development Commission Bill does not serve because it is clearly repugnant to equity, natural justice and good conscience.

Let us thus hope that the Bill is forever buried, and if in the future a bill that seeks to preserve and control grazing reserves and stock routes were to be drafted, then the sponsor of such bill should avoid the pitfalls of its predecessor and uphold the unity of Nigeria which we are all trying to preserve. The above mentioned Taylor Grazing Act should be emulated.

BY UCHEAKOLAM M. ADIM