COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES

Very recently, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria tried to compare two very different things- legitimate business owners and bandits/trespassers.

So some background…

For years, many farmers have complained that cattle would come into their farm/land and devour all of their crops and plants. I think this started and happened mostly during the very dry months in the North, which saw trees and land not bearing any leaves or grass, which in turn meant nothing for cattle to graze. Even though this was not quite welcome by the farmers (who are mostly in and from Eastern and Southern Nigeria), it stayed a little under the radar, until relatively recently, where the cattle herders (who are mostly from Northern Nigeria) and their livestock would brazenly enter into even demarcated and fenced property, bearing arms! Not only did they bear arms, but they would also maim and kill anyone who tried to stop them from trespassing!

This has understandably led to tensions between both sides, with both doing all they can to safe-guard their interests.

In light of these developments, governors of states in Southern Nigeria met, and among other resolutions, agreed to ban open grazing and trespassing.

Fast-forward to now.

As a response to this decision, the AGF has stated that this action on the part of the governors, is wrong. He also implied that it is illegal, on the basis that our laws guarantee freedom of movement to and around any part of Nigeria. He also stated that the decision to ban open grazing is amiss, citing the instance of Northern governors as a way of reprisal, also coming together to ban the trade of spare parts (a venture usually undertaken by people from Eastern Nigeria) in the North.

As with many Nigerians, I found these suggestions/analogies rather shocking, not just because the basis is easily faulty, but more because of who uttered it.

On the first point, the rights to freedom of movement guaranteed by Section 41 the Constitution does not in any way imply or excuse or extend to trespassing into a person’s private property. In fact, the provision of freedom of movement is not without restriction, where reasonably justifiable.

To the other point raised, I don’t see the co-relation. Section 43 guarantees the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. Our laws further lay down procedure for acquiring/owning property, and force is certainly not a laid-down procedure.

The ‘herdsmen’ (as they are commonly referred to) and their herd enter into a person’s private property, without the person’s consent, which makes it tantamount to trespassing. Furthermore, despite trespassing, they have been known to also maim and kill anyone who tries to stop them. Last I checked, battery, attempted murder and murder are still crimes in Nigeria.

On the other hand, the spare parts dealer works from his allotted/allocated premises, pays rents, levies, rates, and other payments that are required to be paid in carrying on the business. How then would it be legally, morally and logically justifiable in the circumstance to eject such people from their lawful businesses? So long as there is no illegality being carried on through the business or in carrying on the business, which would justify closing the business (and not even expulsion or “deportation”), I do not see the basis for the comparison. 

In any event, under the Land Use Act, the land in each state (except land vested in the Federal Government) is vested solely in, and is held (in trust) by the governor of the State, and the governor is to administer it for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the Act.