By Nonyerem Ibiam Esq.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The recent designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern by the Trump administration has thrust the relentless violence in Nigeria, especially in the Middle Belt, into global focus, forcing uncomfortable questions that Nigeria’s political leadership has long evaded.
In response, the Nigerian government has firmly rejected the designation, insisting that the violence is the result of a complex security challenge driven by criminality, resource competition, and climate pressures. However, one reality that remains indisputable is that thousands of Nigerians have been kidnapped, brutally killed, entire communities have been emptied, and countless survivors now languish in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps with little prospect of return. This stark human toll stands in sharp contrast to official denials and underscores a troubling gap between government narratives and the lived experiences of victims on the ground.
For years, Nigerians have been subjected to a deeply misleading narrative about the violence devastating rural communities across the Middle Belt and parts of the South. Media headlines and official statements routinely describe these incidents as “farmer–herder clashes,” implying a mutual confrontation between two equal parties engaged in dispute over resources.
This narrative is not merely inaccurate; it is legally and morally indefensible. It obscures the true nature of the violence, diminishes the gravity of the crimes committed, and weakens the Nigerian state’s constitutional obligation to protect lives and property. In law, precision of language determines responsibility. To describe an armed robbery as a “robber–homeowner clash” would be patently absurd, falsely suggesting parity between the aggressor and the victim and blurring criminal liability. Yet, this distortion is exactly what is created by the term “farmer–herder clash”.
While not denying the existence of genuine farmer-herder clashes, it is critical to recognize that, in a significant number of cases, what is labeled a “clash” is in fact a one-sided pattern of armed attacks by organized groups against unarmed farming communities. Across Benue State, villages like Guma, Logo, and Agatu have witnessed night raids in which assailants armed with automatic weapons attacked sleeping communities. Similarly, communities in Southern Kaduna have experienced repeated massacres, displacement, and the destruction of property.
In these incidents, farmers were not engaged in battle; they were victims of invasion. There was no organized combat, no exchange of fire, and no evidence of equal force. The reality on the ground involves unarmed civilians being attacked in their homes and on their farms by assailants wielding superior firepower. To describe such atrocities as clashes is to empty the word of meaning and drain the law of clarity. While genuine structural pressures like climate change, desertification, and weak land governance strain relations, these must be distinguished from pure criminal violence. When violence takes the form of massacres, village raids, and territorial occupation by force, the appropriate response is law enforcement, not dialogue alone. Peace-building cannot substitute for justice.
The “farmer-herder clash” narrative rests on a false equivalence that collapses under legal scrutiny. By subtly assigning blame to victims and suggesting the violence is the inevitable outcome of unresolved communal tensions, this false framing frustrates criminal accountability. When killings are portrayed as mutual violence, perpetrators are obscured, investigations are diluted, and prosecutions are rare. Mass killings are consequently reduced to unfortunate incidents rather than prosecutable crimes under Nigerian law.
This dangerous narrative entrenches impunity. If everyone is presumed culpable, no one is held responsible, allowing armed groups to disappear into the fog of communal conflict. Furthermore, it allows the state to abdicate its primary constitutional duty. Under Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. A government confronted with a “clash” may claim neutrality and call for dialogue, but a government confronted with armed attacks on civilians has no such discretion. Neutrality in the face of criminal violence is not mediation; it is dereliction of duty.
Herders, as a livelihood group, do not possess ownership rights over farmlands belonging to indigenous communities. Neither tradition nor economic necessity confers a legal right to occupy land by force. Grazing traditions or migratory practices do not confer legal or moral entitlement to forcibly enter land that does not belong to them.
When armed groups enter communities, kill residents, and occupy land through terror, the issue ceases to be one of coexistence or mediation. It becomes a clear violation of property rights, the right to life, and the right to dignity of the human person. To describe such acts as a “clash” is to legitimize lawlessness and deny victims the protection and justice they are owed. These actions are not matters for negotiation; they are offenses demanding arrest, prosecution, and punishment. Indeed, Nigerian courts have rejected self-help and violent enforcement of perceived rights, holding that no individual or authority is entitled to take the law into its own hands.
The consistent mischaracterization of this violence as “communal clashes” does not diminish its legal gravity. When examined through the lens of constitutional law and international human rights obligations, the “clash” narrative is legally unsustainable.
The right to life is guaranteed by Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution, while Section 43 protects the right to acquire and own immovable property. Violent attacks, destruction of homes, and forced displacement amount to direct violations of these constitutional guarantees. The failure to prevent or investigate attacks by armed groups raises a fundamental question of citizenship regarding belonging to a state that cannot—or will not—protect its people.
Under International Human Rights law, Nigeria is bound by instruments like Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(guaranteeing the inviolability of human life) and Article 14 (protecting the right to property). Furthermore, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obliges the state to take positive measures to protect individuals from foreseeable threats. Persistent failure to prevent or investigate killings by armed groups constitutes a breach of this obligation. Widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations may also amount to crimes against humanity under international standards.
Armed raids on villages, mass killings of civilians, destruction of homes and farmlands, and the forced displacement of entire communities satisfy both the actus reus and mens rea criteria contemplated under the Act. When violence is deployed to terrorize populations and drive them off their ancestral lands, the legal character of such conduct transcends ordinary criminality and enters the realm of terrorism. Under Nigerian law, terrorism is not a matter for mediation, coexistence rhetoric, or moral equivalence. It is a grave offense that demands a decisive investigation, prosecution, and punishment.
Despite the clear provisions of the law, it is astonishing that the Nigerian government has refused to classify or treat these armed assailants as terrorists, especially considering that it has done so for separatist factions that have engaged in less violent acts. Describing the violent attacks of defenseless people as a “clash” does not merely mislabel the violence; it risks undermining the statutory framework designed to confront terrorism.
The persistence of the “farmer–herder clash” narrative offers political convenience because it avoids naming perpetrators, dampens public outrage, and diverts attention from institutional failure. Nigeria must abandon euphemisms that sanitize violence. Attacks on farming communities should be described accurately—as armed criminal attacks, mass killings, and acts of terror against civilians. Truthful language is the foundation of accountability.
Until reality is honestly acknowledged and the law firmly enforced, the myth of the “farmer–herder clash” will continue to shield perpetrators, silence victims, and erode the promise of equal protection under the law. No nation governed by law can build peace on a lie.
Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:👉 https://selar.co/4f16676016
_______________________________________________________________________
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
________________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola
_______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
