Special Adviser to the
President on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina, who made the statement during a
television interview, also attempted to trivialize the value of land as an
ancestral heritage that must not be wrested from the hands of its owners.
"You can only have ancestral attachment when you are alive," said the
presidential spokesman. "If you are talking about ancestral attachment, if
you are dead, what does the attachment matter?"
Although this manner
of speaking truly appears to be redolent of, and seems to confirm, many of the
things that Nigerians have for long accused the Muhammadu Buhari leadership of,
including complicity in the whole matter of the killings, even orchestrated towards
genocide and a hegemonic plan, it is still important to approach this situation
with calm and a presence of mind that seeks to analyze, with minimal
sentiments, what the issues are.
The first, most
fundamental issue is the land. And it is very disappointing, indeed a disaster,
when people in positions of authority demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the
people they govern, or of humanity in general. The tragedy is even more
pronounced when these leaders display an absence of effort, diligence and the
attentiveness to the voice of their own people. Heeding the recommendations
provided in a recent editorial of this newspaper on the subject of ranching,
for example, would have saved the Presidency from this rather unnecessary
gaffe. Ranching, it needs to be said again, is a form of agricultural business
that, in modern economies, should be private sector-driven. It is not different
from poultry rearing, piggery, and cocoa or cassava farming. Simply a private
business! And it stands to reason that, even with due regard to an entitlement
to government assistance, it must remain wholly the business of its
proprietors. The economic argument is unassailable for ranching wherever it can
be productively carried out in Nigeria but what bedevils it is the insensitivity
of this government. With its lackadaisical attitude to the killings by herdsmen
and the insensate utterances of its officials, what should reasonably be a
purely business decision and a matter of economics as it is in other climes has
taken on the appearance of suspected hegemonic motives and real or imagined
fears of domination.
As earlier noted by
this newspaper, fundamentally, the ranching matter boils down to land ownership
and control. This assumes the utmost sensitivity because all over the world,
land is considered the mother of wealth. And, once again, under no condition at
all should such a project (government-supported ranching) permanently
dispossess, in any way, indigenes of the ownership of their land. It is also
important to reiterate that no state governor has the moral, legal, or
political authority to allow such injustice. The land must eternally belong to
its original owners.
Clearly, however,
government has thrown caution and sensitivity to the wind by putting forward
what many have adjudged to be a threat-laced ultimatum to land owners across
the country. It is also apparent that the presidency, by its disparagement of
the notion of ancestral heritage and in a manner reminiscent of the rapaciousness
of the Land Use Act, is prepared to deprive the people full ownership of their
land.
But let it even be
assumed that the majority of Nigerians who accuse the government of complicity
and some sinister motives in these killings by the herdsmen are wrong. Let it
also stand, for a moment, that rather than being accused of insensitivity in
handling the public relations aspect of this matter, the presidency deserves
accolades for coming out with what it considers its own candid admonition to
its people: "Please, leave your land for these killers; it is better to
remain alive with no land than to adamantly hold on to what you will, in any
case, lose your life trying to protect." Is this not a subtle admission,
or, from the perspective of the citizens, a clear indication, that these
prowling and blood-thirsty herders have, or eventually will, overpower the
state? Has the government not committed the fatal, self-delegitimizing sin of
being (or becoming) incapable of carrying out its original and most important
duty, which is the protection of citizens' lives? What kind of a government
capitulates in the face of, let this phenomenon be called what it is,
terrorism?
It must be said
without any fear of contradiction that this kind of attitude and manner of
speaking, particularly if the Presidency does not desist from it, should lead
to a total disavowal of this particular administration in the minds of
Nigerians and, ultimately, in an Act of Parliament. Perhaps the government
should be dissolved if it has proven, and admitted to be, incapable of
protecting the lives and property of its citizens.
Sadly, the language of
resignation, of purposeful defeat and surrender has been the mainstay of the
Muhammadu Buhari administration's response to this bold herdsmen insurgency.
From the rather silly advocacy for the institution of the so-called cattle
colonies to this even more asinine remark that the people should save their
lives by willfully surrendering their land to the killers, this government has
displayed a rather disturbing tendency to throw appeasement at a band of
blood-spilling criminals. Let it be re-asserted as many times as possible that
a government that gives up its territorial authority so easily, and encourages
or tries to persuade its citizens to do the same, deserves to have its cogency
and legitimacy very seriously questioned. What Nigeria needs, at such a time as
this, is a leadership that comforts and re-assures, in words and in deeds, not
one that foretells dispossession and further killings. The presidency is
therefore advised to re-evaluate its position and emerge with a more reassuring
posture.
No comments:
Post a Comment