{"id":99978,"date":"2026-08-19T15:29:36","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T15:29:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/?p=99978"},"modified":"2026-08-19T16:59:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T16:59:34","slug":"benue-ethicities-draw-line-on-federal-govts-ranching-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/?p=99978","title":{"rendered":"Benue ethnicities draw line on federal govt’s ranching plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tiv, Idoma and Igede leaders challenge Abuja over proposed pilot, citing land rights, security, consultation and a 2020 court judgment<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A new federal drive to transform Nigeria’s livestock economy has run into a familiar fault line in Benue State, where the state’s three principal sociocultural organisations are warning that ranching cannot become a route to the federal control or permanent allocation of agricultural land.<\/p>\n

The Mzough U Tiv (MUT), Ochetoha K’Idoma (OKI) and Omi Ny’Igede (ONI), representing the Tiv, Idoma and Igede peoples respectively, have issued a joint position paper rejecting the Federal Government’s proposed pilot implementation of its National Ranching Policy in Benue.<\/p>\n

Their objection is not, they stress, to ranching itself.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the organisations say Nigeria urgently needs to modernise livestock production and that ranching is preferable to unrestricted nomadic movement. Their dispute is over\u00a0who controls the land, who consents to its use, who pays for the scheme, and what happens to communities that have already lost access to farmland because of conflict.<\/p>\n

The controversy follows an August 11 announcement by Livestock Development Minister Idi Mukhtar Maiha that Benue, Plateau, Nasarawa, Kaduna and Adamawa, together with the Federal Capital Territory, had been selected for the Federal Government’s ranching intervention. The government says the areas were prioritised because they have experienced some of the country’s worst farmer-herder conflicts.<\/p>\n

The first proof-of-concept ranch is being developed at Wase in Plateau State, while Abuja says it plans eventually to rehabilitate\u00a0417 grazing reserves\u00a0and turn them into integrated livestock communities with pasture, water, veterinary services and other infrastructure.<\/p>\n

But in Benue, the announcement has revived memories of the abandoned RUGA controversy and, more importantly, an unresolved question of federalism:\u00a0can Abuja establish or substantially develop livestock settlements on land within a state without the consent of the state authorities?<\/p>\n

A ranching policy – but whose land?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Benue position paper argues that the Federal Government’s livestock policy must operate within the Constitution, the Land Use Act and the laws of Benue State.<\/p>\n

That argument has considerable legal history behind it.<\/p>\n

In February 2020, the Federal High Court sitting in Makurdi declared the proposed establishment of RUGA settlements or cattle colonies in Benue without state approval unlawful and unconstitutional. Justice Mobolaji Olajuwon further restrained the Federal Government and its agencies from holding, administering, using or allocating land in Benue for such settlements contrary to the Constitution, the Land Use Act and the state’s Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law.<\/p>\n

The judgment did not outlaw ranching. Rather, it placed the issue squarely within the existing constitutional and land-administration framework.<\/p>\n

Benue’s own law, enacted in 2017, prohibits open grazing while providing for ranching. The state government has repeatedly maintained that its legislation is directed against open grazing, not against livestock owners or ranching.<\/p>\n

In 2024, the government again ordered security agencies to enforce the law and stated that herders unwilling to ranch should leave the state with their cattle.<\/p>\n

This creates an apparent paradox at the centre of the present dispute:\u00a0Benue already has a legal framework requiring ranching, yet the state is being selected for a federal ranching programme that its sociocultural leaders say was not agreed with them.<\/p>\n

Abuja says the old model is no longer sustainable<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Federal Government’s case is straightforward.<\/p>\n

Minister Maiha has repeatedly argued that large-scale cattle movement across farming communities has become increasingly unsustainable because grazing routes have disappeared amid agricultural expansion, urbanisation and infrastructure development.<\/p>\n

His ministry says the answer is to provide water, pasture, veterinary services and other facilities where livestock can remain rather than forcing herds to travel long distances.<\/p>\n

The proposed ranches are also being presented as economic centres rather than simple grazing fields.<\/p>\n

According to the government, livestock settlements could contain schools, healthcare facilities, veterinary clinics, solar power, earth dams and pasture infrastructure while supporting milk collection, dairy processing, abattoirs and other businesses.<\/p>\n

The ministry is also planning electronic identification of cattle to improve ownership records and help tackle cattle rustling.<\/p>\n

There is therefore a substantive economic argument behind the policy.<\/p>\n

And there is evidence that sections of the pastoralist community support the direction. In May, the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development said the Miyetti Allah Fulako Yeso Yeso Development Association had endorsed President Bola Tinubu’s livestock transformation agenda and the proposed national ranching policy.<\/p>\n

The ministry says it has also engaged about 34 pastoral organisations and held consultations with pastoralists under the leadership of the Sultan of Sokoto.<\/p>\n

But that very claim has become part of Benue’s objection.<\/p>\n

‘Who was consulted?’<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three Benue organisations say the consultation process has been fundamentally one-sided.<\/p>\n

Their position paper notes the Federal Government’s engagement with pastoral organisations but says the three apex sociocultural bodies, traditional institutions and farming communities in Benue were not consulted before the state was selected.<\/p>\n

That distinction matters because a ranch is not merely a livestock policy.<\/p>\n

It is also a\u00a0land policy, settlement policy, security policy and agricultural policy.<\/p>\n

The absence of the people who farm the proposed host communities from the consultation process, the organisations argue, risks turning a policy intended to reduce conflict into another source of conflict.<\/p>\n

The concern is particularly acute in Benue because displacement has already transformed the state’s land question. A 2025 Benue State Action Plan recorded more than 1.5 million people displaced since 2018, with more than 500,000 still in prolonged displacement at the time of the report.<\/p>\n

The humanitarian consequences have been documented independently of the current political dispute. Research published on displacement in Benue describes farmers losing farms, homes, community infrastructure and livelihoods, while many displaced residents remain unable to return safely to their ancestral lands.<\/p>\n

Against that background, the Benue organisations ask a politically uncomfortable question: Should land from which farming communities have been displaced first be used to restore those communities, or should it become part of permanent livestock settlements?<\/p>\n

The security paradox<\/strong><\/p>\n

The strongest objection in the joint position paper concerns the Federal Government’s choice of conflict-affected states as pilot locations.<\/p>\n

For Abuja, that makes practical sense: if the movement of cattle is a major driver of farmer-herder clashes, then ranching should be tested where the problem is most acute.<\/p>\n

For the Benue groups, however, the same logic appears backwards.<\/p>\n

They argue that communities which have suffered violence should first see perpetrators arrested and prosecuted, displaced farmers returned to their homes, destroyed communities rebuilt and livelihoods restored.<\/p>\n

Only then, they contend, should government embark on any permanent land-use programme.<\/p>\n

This argument resonates with larger human-rights recommendations. Following deadly violence in Benue and other states, the National Human Rights Commission has called for adequate civilian protection, investigation and prosecution of perpetrators, support for vulnerable populations, restitution and compensation, while also supporting ranching as part of a strategy to reduce future conflict.<\/p>\n

That distinction is important.<\/p>\n

The opposition emerging in Benue is not necessarily an argument\u00a0against ranching. It is an argument against treating ranching as a substitute for\u00a0justice, security and land restitution.<\/p>\n

An old controversy in new clothing?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The resemblance to the RUGA episode has inevitably become part of the debate.<\/p>\n

The RUGA settlement plan generated fierce opposition in 2019 and was eventually suspended by the Federal Government. Academic research into the episode found that lack of public dialogue and concerns over land and settlement were central to resistance in Middle Belt communities.<\/p>\n

The difference this time is significant: Abuja is explicitly talking about ranching and livestock modernisation rather than simply reviving the old language of cattle colonies.<\/p>\n

But the political sensitivity remains.<\/p>\n

In fact, the Federal Government itself appears to recognise the danger. Its present programme is being described as a transition from nomadic livestock production to settled, commercial ranching, with the ministry seeking pastoralist buy-in before expansion.<\/p>\n

The unresolved question is whether\u00a0state governments and host farming communities will receive the same level of consultation.<\/p>\n

Benue has been here before<\/strong><\/p>\n

The latest controversy also has an important historical echo.<\/p>\n

In 2019, Benue sociocultural organisations were already distinguishing between ranching as a legitimate private agricultural enterprise and government-funded ranches for private cattle owners. An earlier debate recorded opposition from Mzough U Tiv, Idoma representatives and Omi Ny’Igede to the use of public money to construct ranches for private cattle businesses, while acknowledging ranching as the appropriate alternative to open grazing.<\/p>\n

That position is strikingly similar to the one now emerging in 2026.<\/p>\n

The central argument is that ranching should be treated as an\u00a0agricultural business, with livestock owners acquiring or leasing land lawfully, rather than as a federally sponsored settlement programme imposed upon farming communities.<\/p>\n

What the Benue groups are asking for<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three organisations are calling for the Federal Government to halt any implementation in Benue until there has been genuine consultation with the state government, traditional institutions, farming communities and their representative organisations.<\/p>\n

They also want the Federal Government to recognise the existing Benue ranching law and the legal limits imposed by the Land Use Act and the courts.<\/p>\n

Their alternative is not to preserve nomadism.
\nIt is to develop livestock through privately owned or properly negotiated ranches, with government concentrating on veterinary services, improved breeds, feed and fodder, animal identification, infrastructure, security and access to markets.<\/p>\n

That approach would, in effect, separate\u00a0livestock development\u00a0from\u00a0land acquisition and settlement.<\/p>\n

It would also place the economic burden of establishing a ranch primarily on the livestock enterprise, rather than creating the perception that public land is being transferred to private beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

A policy that could succeed \u2014 if consent comes first<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a genuine opportunity buried inside the controversy.<\/p>\n

The country’s farmer-herder crisis has persisted for decades. The Federal Government is right that uncontrolled movement of large herds across cultivated farmland is increasingly difficult to sustain. Its proposed investment in veterinary services, fodder, livestock identification, dairy production and modern abattoirs could form part of a more productive livestock economy.<\/p>\n

Benue, meanwhile, has little reason to oppose ranching as such. Its own law makes ranching the prescribed alternative to open grazing.<\/p>\n

The real contest is therefore over\u00a0process and power.<\/p>\n

Can Abuja modernise livestock without appearing to take control of state land?<\/p>\n

Can Benue protect its farming communities without turning the ranching debate into an ethnic confrontation?<\/p>\n

Can displaced farmers be returned and compensated while livestock owners are given a viable modern production system?<\/p>\n

And can a policy designed to end conflict be implemented without first obtaining the consent of the people who will live with its consequences?<\/p>\n

Those questions will determine whether the National Ranching Policy becomes a genuine solution or another chapter in Nigeria’s long-running struggle over land, livestock and federalism.<\/p>\n

For Benue’s Tiv, Idoma and Igede leadership, the message is now explicit:\u00a0ranching may be welcome; imposed settlement is not.<\/p>\n

The Federal Government’s next move may determine whether that distinction becomes the foundation of a workable national compromise\u2014or the beginning of another confrontation over land in Nigeria’s Food Basket.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tiv, Idoma and Igede leaders challenge Abuja over proposed pilot, citing land rights, security, consultation and a 2020 court judgment A new federal drive to transform Nigeria’s livestock economy has run into a familiar fault line in Benue State, where the state’s three principal sociocultural organisations are warning that ranching cannot become a route to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":64248,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5779,7],"tags":[7409,6940,8599,3004,3247],"class_list":["post-99978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-agriculture","category-news","tag-federal-government","tag-idoma","tag-igede","tag-ranching","tag-tiv"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=99978"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99978\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":99985,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99978\/revisions\/99985"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/64248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=99978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=99978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=99978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}