The Modakeke community of southwest Nigeria first mooted the idea around 1937. They would no longer set aside a portion of their farm produce as ‘isakole’ paid annually to Ile-Ife landowning families. They had occupied the land for upwards of one hundred and fifty years and now viewed the Yoruba land custom of expropriating non-natives to make their lessee status unambiguous old-fashioned. And how fair was it that having settled the land for many generations, inter-marrying with their hosts (Ooni Abewela who ascended in 1839 was half-Modakeke) and making immense contribution as skilled military and farmhands to the well-being of Ife metropolis, were they, the self-named Modakeke, yet considered non-natives without rights to land?
This proposal outraged Ife-folk. It appeared to them like a brazen land arrogation attempt by the Modakeke, like a modern-day tenant ripping their ‘tenancy agreement’ and saying they now own the house by virtue of long tenancy. The Ife-Modakeke land squabble was legally resolved after the Second World War when British-formed ‘West African Court of Appeal’, in 1948, upheld customary rights of occupancy of Ile-Ife landowning families and attendant isakole (land rent). Every move by the Modakeke to improve the land they occupy, from thereon, would be met by Ife-folk with suspicion of land arrogation; even when the Modakeke built a school (Modakeke High School) it was interpreted as such. Expectedly, a further fifty-years of ‘cold war’ conditions between Ife and Modakeke degenerated into a full-blown war lasting three years (1997 - 2000) and mutual suspicion still persists between both Yoruba groups today.
The root cause of frequent breakout of hostilities between the cow-men and arable farmers in middle-belt Nigeria is similar. And it would seem in this case revisiting history is more discomfiting than burying bodies in mass graves.
In 1922, two years after Treaty of Versailles came into force, Germany relinquished ‘German-Cameroons’ to Allied France and Britain as part of its ‘war guilt’. Britain’s portion of German-Cameroons bordered four of today's Nigerian states: Cross-River, Benue, Taraba and Adamawa, and was administered as ‘British-Cameroons.’ A referendum four decades later (1961) unified southern ‘British-Cameroons’ with the Republic of Cameroon, while its northern part was subsumed into Nigeria and curiously renamed: ‘Sardauna Province.’ This name suggests the area commonly known as ‘the middle-belt’ today in Nigeria had joined three-fifth of the then newly independent Nigeria that for a century, pre-British occupation, was subject to the suzerainty of Sokoto Caliphate and by extension ‘Fulani-rule’.
By this historical account, that cow-men and arable farmers attack are middle-belt land war by proxy becomes easy to see. When some arable farmers plant poisonous yams, it is act of a people who feel pestered on their ancestral land. When some cow-men raze middle-belt farmlands and displace communities, it is act of a people who feel deprived of their ‘traditional grazing routes’ as heirs to the Sokoto Caliphate. Incidentally, the Modakeke community earlier discussed migrated to Ile-Ife as a result of displacement by same ancient Sokoto Caliphate.
But while lead case of Ile-Ife landowning families will support customary rights claim on the land by the cluster of various middle-belt ethnic groups: Tivs, Jukuns, Idomas and so on, in contradiction, uti possidetis claim by Sokoto Caliphate is recognised by law. Although, pragmatically, this latter claim of land ownership is cognisant of the conquered peoples’ ‘native law’ on land use (e.g burial sites and farmlands: see ‘United States v. Sioux Nations of Indians [1980]. Also, Oduntan Onisiwo v. Attorney-General of Southern Nigeria [1912] wherein dictum of Cook v. Sprigg, [1899] “...a change of sovereignty ought not to affect private property...” was rehashed to diminish 1861 Cession Treaty between Oba Dosunmu of Lagos and the British Crown).
This seeming abeyance over middle-belt lands is what makes Land Use Act of 1978 a progressive intervention when it was decreed, that “...all land ...are hereby vested in the Governor of that State... in trust, and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians...” All Nigerians in this text equalises natives and non-natives status regarding access to land. Although the document further acknowledges customary right of occupancy is to be outweighed only by “overriding public interests” and “compensation” must follow.
Whereas Modakeke and Ife strife usually resumes upon major developments (e.g creation of Ife East local government headquartered at Modakeke, or suggestion that Modakeke king and the Ooni of Ife are compeers), the cow-men and arable farmers strife, being largely down to livelihood of both groups, hardly witnesses ceasefires, with spike in murder toll and community displacement when the greenery turns brown in dry season.
Negotiating a long-lasting solution to land war between middle-belt cow-men and arable farmers may begin by defining ‘peaceful co-existence’ as an overriding public interest. Thus, activating clause in Land Use Act 1978. Abeyance over ownership of middle-belt land and legacy case: Chief Commissioner, Eastern Provinces v. S.N. Ononye & Ors (1944) which held that similar phrase public purpose in Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1917, is not acquisition of private land by the Crown (government) for purpose of granting lease thereof to a ‘commercial company’ (in this case, cattle rearing is a commercial venture) must be bore in mind.
And key issues to be resolved in these negotiations, to my mind, are: having settled in their Ruga on middle-belt lands with recognised Ardo, upwards of 2 to 3 generations, can Fulani cow-men be justifiably regarded as non-natives without rights to the land? Also, can fear harboured by the smaller middle-belt ethnic groups: Tivs, Jukuns, Idomas and so on, that their land will be taken over by a larger Fulani ethnic group be simply dismissed as prejudice, especially when claims abound that communities razed by some Fulani cow-men have been renamed and resettled by the assailants?
There are programmes in the bookshelf where the government abandons workable ideas that are in line with ‘peaceful co-existence’ agenda above. From ‘Grazing Reserve Law of Northern Nigeria (1965)’ to ‘Petroleum Trust Fund Pastoralist Development Programme (1997)’ and ‘Prohibition of Open Grazing Law (2018)’, these documents should be consolidated for best socioeconomic interests of both cow-men and arable farmers in Nigeria’s middle-belt.
Comments
Post a Comment