Gov Bala Mohammed’s Incongruous Argument

Editors Note; Written By UnderTow and originally published in TheNationonlineng

In a week that saw him say almost all the right things and make certain useful observations on every subject he exposited on, Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, succumbed on Thursday to a moment of beguiling controversy. It is not clear what exactly the temptation was, but the issues involved touched upon the rationality or agreeability of herdsmen wielding weapons, as well as Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State’s recent outburst. The Bauchi governor appears to believe that other tribes in Nigeria, as well as south-western and south-eastern governors, are making a broil over the herdsmen-indigenes conflicts in their states. His argument was that the herdsmen, as a matter of necessity and self-defence, had to carry weapons, and seeing as the constitution guarantees the right of every Nigerian to live freely in any part of the country and move freely within, then why the fuss about the illegality of expelling them? In that summarisation of the issue, the governor betrayed a fine but faux appraisal of the conflicts. Indeed, the governor reduced the issue to being nothing more than a transgression against the herdsmen’s rights to free movement and life.

His account: “The west does not want to accommodate other tribes but we are accommodating your tribe in Bauchi. We have Yoruba, who have stayed in Bauchi for over 150 years, some of them have being made permanent secretaries in Gombe, Bauchi and Borno. But because the Fulani man is practicing the tradition of transhuman pastoralism, he has been exposed to cattle rustlers who carry a gun, kill him and take away his cows, and he has no option but to carry AK-47 because the government and the society are not protecting him. It’s the fault of the government. Nobody owns any forests in Nigeria; it’s owned by Nigeria. Under section 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution, every Nigerian is free to stay anywhere. Anybody can speak anyhow but we are only exercising restraint. If cybercrime is being practised mostly by one tribe, you don’t criminalise the whole tribe because of this. That’s why you journalists need to be sensitive and exercise restraint. Avoid writing reports that will threaten the unity of this country… My brother and my colleague Ortom started all this as regards herders clashes with other tribes. That’s why I must commend the Chairman of the Northern Governors Forum, Solomon Lalong, he is a hero in the promotion of peace despite his diverse and minority background, he put an end to the Incessant fighting between herdsmen and other tribes in Plateau.”

How Mr Bala came about the idea that no one owns the forests in Nigeria can only be speculated upon. As a governor, he would have been expected to acquaint himself with at least Section 1 of the Land Use Act (1978), which states that, “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation is hereby vested in the Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” This includes forest reserves, from where Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State sought to expel unregistered herdsmen. Has Governor Bala perhaps not been exercising his legal rights as a governor with respect to land? Has he thought all along that the lands in his state belong to the federal government and not the state government? The governor has neither displayed a proper understanding of the issues on ground nor proved that he roundly followed up the progression of events until the executive orders by governors and the forceful eviction of Fulani herdsmen allegedly inspired by Yoruba activist, Sunday Igboho. He also may be labouring under the impression that Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State is simply grandstanding and rather myopic in his recent outbursts concerning the federal government’s bias towards one tribe to the fatal detriment of the other tribes. In short, the governor could and should have suffered his disagreeable position on herdsmen-tribal clashes to retain the anonymity it had previously enjoyed. To his ruin, he did not; and although many will not think any pro-herdsmen sentiment worth their while, more people have pointed the accusatory finger at him, questioning his credentials as a leader.

More, Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not 23 (national ethics), 24 (duties of the citizen) nor 25 (citizenship), guarantees the freedom of any Nigerian to move anywhere within the country. That right is however derogated by Section 41(2), and even his quoted Section 24(d) would have posed a problem to anyone living in an area without making any positive and useful contribution. To acknowledge the rights of criminal herdsmen to freedom of movement, without so much as a mention of the losses and disadvantages that the aggrieved indigenes of those areas have suffered at their hands, would be in short to gratify that meanest of human frailties, closedmindedness, and disqualify oneself from the circumspection that should attend great leaders at all times. This, unfortunately, was the camp Governor Bala chose to pitch his tent with, carrying on as though to argue that the wielding of weapons should become a perfectly natural thing to Nigerians without so much as questioning where they may have obtained these weapons. Reports have revealed that these weapons were owned illegally anyway. If a person has a legitimate fear for his safety, the appropriate thing to do would be to apply for a license to carry whatever weapon he may so require for his safety. Does the governor know this?

To continue in the same breath as if he were not a governor, and by extension a part of the government, would make many of the aggrieved parties, including the governors he so excoriated with his faulty arguments, cringe. Some, reluctant to undervalue his comprehension of the deeper and more nuanced issues relating to the herdsmen’s possessing weaponry of the sophisticated kind, believe that he is simply cozening the facts of the issue to satisfy his tribal or perhaps economic interests. That much may be doubtful and almost unfair to the governor, despite his otherwise excellent pronouncements on issues like rape or the rechannelling of some N500m recovered from ghost workers’ salaries to paying off gratuities. It was unfair of him to dismiss the opinions and efforts of his counterparts, one of whom has taken the welcome but perhaps dramatic step of conducting security tours round his state. Despite how dramatic and unnecessary some may believe such a step is, it means some governors are at least taking the issue of insecurity in their states serious enough to try to get to the root of it, instead of sitting on a high horse and pontificating dismissively on the issue. Is it not presumptuous of him to assume that the governors that have taken steps to regularise the activities of herdsmen in their states have not conducted their due diligence in detecting the source of a heinous criminal syndicate that has not only haunted but harassed and terrorised their communities for almost a decade?

But such is the power of what some have described as inordinate ethnic fidelity, an accusation thrown at not only him but many northern governors in general, and an accusation which some of the governors have made spirited efforts to extricate themselves from. Indeed, Governor Bala appears to have forgotten that Nigerians do need the beef and leather that come from cattle. The fact that Nigerians are willing to forgo it speaks volumes. They reason is that it is more pertinent to preserve their lives than to enjoy whatever nourishments may accrue from the consumption of what they will now view as blood cattle. However, the more important point is that while regular Nigerians appear willing to boycott beef, governors are more circumspect and are calling for a ranching or modern system of raising cattle. They have lost too many people for comfort, mostly to the activities of some of the herdsmen who bear these weapons illegally.

An important point the misfiring governor raised, which needs correction, is that the Fulani in general are being stereotyped as criminal herdsmen. This is not true. Herdsmen have been identified as belonging primarily to the Fulani, Hausa and Ebira tribes. There may be others, but of those three, the Fulani are the most popular. Statistics and history prove this. The validity or otherwise of his claim that ethnic profiling lies at the heart of the claim that other governors have dedicated time and effort to pitching tribes against one another is suspect. Governor Seyi Makinde, his Oyo State counterpart, who has been accused of a glacial and apathetic approach to insecurity in his state, preached peace to the wrath and anger of his people. It is also unfair to accuse Governor Ortom, whose state has suffered more than most from militant herdsmen, of fanning the embers of discord with his statements. To the contrary, his statements are an umpteenth echo of the general sentiments of Nigerians concerning the ethnic fundamentalist accusation they have made against the federal government. It is this same federal government that has failed the people – perhaps the only correct statement Governor Bala made to the press.

The governor is no stranger to controversy: until his election as governor, he was hounded by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). After his election, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) harried him and tried to square account with him. He has emerged from these controversies, only two of many, stronger, grizzled and immovable. He, however, should be alive to even his own limits before stoking the flames of controversy with his polemic stance on ethnic controversies. Seeing as he does not have the philosophical or ideological sense of fairness required to judge correctly the nature and extent of ethnic issues, he may find obscurity a truer companion than the harsh scrutiny that comes with airing narrowly construed, illiberal and borderline positions.