LAND USE ACT, THE GRAZING BILL AND SUNDRY CAPRICIOUS LAWS: PERFIDIOUS USE OF LAW MAKING RIGHTS TO ENTRENCH COLONIALISM - By Author unknown

I have tried to wrap my head around the idea of a law that gives a herdsman from Chad or perhaps Bindawa in Katsina State the right over my land in Kalio Ama of Okrika in Rivers State, in order to be able to wander into and legitimately make infractions on my own rights just to feed his cows, and cannot but come to the depressing conclusion that it is as unjust as the laws that grant the Federal Government the right to my land and the exclusive ownership and use of minerals therefrom.

What is most confounding is that the existing laws vesting right to land and of mineral deposits to a Federal Government rather than the people and communities bearing such resources, as unjust as they are, are unchallenged and have now become the basis for this demeaning discussion on a grazing bill.

For instance, let us consider the Land Use Decree (now Act) of 1978. It was promulgated on 29th of March 1978 following the recommendations of a MINORITY REPORT of a panel appointed by the Federal Military Government of the time to advise on future land policy. WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT, it vested all land in each State of the Federation in the governor of that State.

The Act vests all land comprised in the territory of each state (except land vested in the Federal Government for its agencies) solely in the hands of the Military governors of the State who would hold such land in trust for the people.

FIRST: It was a product of military fiat and dictatorship.

SECOND: It was even a minority report that was superimposed on the majority against the spirit and ethos of democracy.

QUESTION: How then does the majority in a democracy, today, allow it go unchallenged and simply conform to its draconian nature?

The Land Use Act is both a perversion and a criminal usurpation of the ad coelum doctrine, itself, a universal property law principle: 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos' (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to the depths below") that vests property holders with rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below.

By military fiat, the rights of people were proscribed and vested in the State, making the people perpetually subservient and tenants to the Federation. Which progressive democracy is so framed?

Smart Okotie opined and it makes sense that: "The 1978 Land Use Act is feudal. It has a colonial character. It denies Nigerians right to own land and the range of resources contained in it. This is outright economic dis-empowerment by other means - a trend that is synonymous with feudal and colonial rule.

"Basically, the law reduces Nigerians to the status of squatters, as they are mere occupiers of land not owners, no matter how much they pay or paid to acquire it. This truth highlights the silent reality of established and sustained special anti-Nigeria relationship between British neo-colonial authorities and feudal Northern Nigerian elites. The latter are known principal connivers against Nigeria's freedom and progress. For as long as Nigerians cannot own land, they will remain unable to enrich their lives with the wealth of their land! Who then owns or controls the wealth of Nigerian land?"

Your guess is as good as mine.

In addition, according to the framers of the then Decree, the promulgation of the Land Use Act was as a result of two main factors:                  
           
The first was the diversity of customary laws on land tenure and difficulty in applying the various customs of the different people.

The second factor was the rampant practice in southern Nigeria with regards to fraudulent sales of land. The same land would be sold to different persons at the same time giving rise to so many litigations.

While the law succeeded in eliminating the first, the second remains an ever abiding malady because as a matter of fact no law can eliminate fraud. Thus, a supposed fundamental basis for the Land Use Act remains a plaguing reality making the Act a failed initiative.

Also, based on the Land Use Act, “Statutory rights of occupancy” are to be granted by the Governor and related principally to urban areas, while “Customary right of occupancy”, which means the right of a person or community of lawfully using or occupying land in accordance with customary law are granted under the Act.

Thus, Local governments are empowered to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or organisation for agricultural, residential and other purposes WITH THE PROVISO that grants of land for agricultural or GRAZING PURPOSES should not exceed 500 or 5000 hectares respectively WITHOUT THE CONTENT of the State Governor.

One can therefore see that in spite of the shackling nature of the Act, it was still gracious in its perfidy to provide for grazing. So on what basis is a new grazing law being promoted and to proscribe and abrogate the powers of State Governors to regulate grazing activities in their respective States? On what basis; and would the Land Use Act be amended in the face of the conflict that the proposed law will pose?

But that is even the least of the troubling issues. What is the justification for transferring rights to herdsmen across the country for grazing purposes and economic gains while denying Nigerians across the country right to their lands and for economic gains therefrom?

Why does the interest of a herdsman superintend that of the generality of Nigerians?

Why is the herdsman being singled out for favours, when with the same legislative dexterity, all Nigerians can be empowered by the resources they are blessed with from their lands.

Why is the curse of Nigerians being made the blessing of the herdsman?

Something tells me this is beyond grazing rights but the right to dominion, and the herdsman is simply being used as the vehicle for achieving that grand purpose.

I may be wrong. In fact, I agree that I am. But at least, I have the freedom of thought and the enjoyment thereof to reason as I choose.

The Land Use Decree was promulgated for four main reasons:

1. to effect structural change in the system of land tenure;

2. to achieve fast economic and social transformation;

3. to negate economic inequality caused by the appropriation of rising land values by land speculators and land holders;

4. and to make land available easily and cheaply, to both the government and private individual developers.

It achieved only one major objective: to deny Nigerians the right to their land. We don't even know the details of the fine points of the majority, and thus, substantive report of the panel and no one is asking questions.

The grazing bill will achieve only one objective: the promulgation of fundamentalist ideals. Nothing more, nothing less.

I rest my case.