- HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER, EJIMAKOR REACTS: MALAMI GRIEVOUSLY WRONG
- MALAMI’s AN INTERPRETATION OF AG OF SAMBISA FOREST REPUBLIC –LAWYERS OF CONSCIENCE
SHARE THIS
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Shehu Malami’s comment that the resolution of Southern Governors Forum to ban open grazing in their respective states, is akin to banning all spare parts dealers in the Northern parts of the country and is unconstitutional, has drawn the ire of the Ondo State Governor, Arakunrin Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN.
Akeredolu, in a statement, Thursday, said, not only is the decision irreversible, it must be enforced with vigour, stating that it is most unfortunate that the AGF is unable to distill issues as expected of a Senior Advocate.
The governor began: “I have just read the press statement credited to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Shehu Malami, SAN, on the resolution of the Southern Governors Forum to ban open grazing in their respective States. The AGF is quoted to have said that this reasoned decision, among others, is akin to banning all spare parts dealers in the Northern parts of the country and is unconstitutional.
“It is most unfortunate that the AGF is unable to distill issues as expected of a Senior Advocate. Nothing can be more disconcerting. This outburst should, ordinarily, not elicit response from reasonable people who know the distinction between a legitimate business that is not, in anyway, injurious and a certain predilection for anarchy. Clinging to an anachronistic model of animal husbandry, which is evidently injurious to harmonious relationship between the herders and the farmers as well as the local populace, is wicked and arrogant.
“Comparing this anachronism, which has led to loss of lives, farmlands and property, and engendered untold hardship on the host communities, with buying and selling of auto parts is not only strange, it, annoyingly, betrays a terrible mindset.
“Mr Malami is advised to approach the court to challenge the legality of the Laws of the respective States baning open grazing and decision of the Southern Governor Forum taken in the interest of their people. We shall be most willing to meet him in Court.
“The decision to ban open grazing stays. It will be enforced with vigour,” Akeredolu, himself a SAN, submitted.
[7:06 PM, 5/20/2021] CLObenEzeagu2: Malami’s is an Islamic interpretation of the constitutional law by the AG of Sambisa Forest Republic.
Lawyers react
Ever since the Attorney General’s current hit the airwaves, Nigerian lawyers have been reacting in disbelief. One of them is human rights lawyer, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, who wrote in from Alaigbo. He says:
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IS WRONG ON OPEN GRAZING – EJIMAKOR
Days ago, Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) granted an interview to Channels Television in which he faulted Southern Governors’ ban on open grazing. The AGF is wrong; Southern Governors are right, and here’s why:
Before one can graze, he must be a cattle rearer or a herdsman. The herdsman wouldn’t have to enter another person’s land. If the herdsman is grazing on his own land, it does not implicate any legal, safety or economic issues because the land belongs to him. But when he goes upon another man’s land to graze without permission or some leave and license, he commits trespass, civil and criminal trespass to boot.
Conversely, there is no written law in Nigeria that permits herders to enter into another man’s land without the owner’s permission. Not even the Nigerian Constitution cited by Malami. The part of the Constitution he relied on allows freedom of movement of persons, not animals, whether goats, pigs or cattle. And such freedom must be exercised in a peaceable and legal manner, not by force, not by trespass, not by terror.
Most people think that trespass is only a civil wrong in which you go to a civil court to claim monetary damages and have the trespasser expelled from your property through a civil court order. It is much more than that.
In Northern Nigeria where the Attorney-General and these herdsmen hail from, Section 342 of the Penal Code (applicable to Northern Nigeria) provides that ‘Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy a person in possession of that property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon that property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy such person or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass’.
Open grazing intimidates, insults and annoys. And in this era, it terrorizes, kills and destroys properties. What more do you need before understanding that it’s a crime in all its ramifications.
Criminal trespass is punishable by arrest, arraignment, prosecution and imprisonment. Again, this is northern Nigeria where these herders hail from. There are other laws of Nigeria that border on assault, manslaughter, murder, malicious destruction of property, disorderly conduct, breach of the peace and laws on land use that are violated whenever herdsmen graze without permission and oftentimes with violence.
So, without any new law banning open grazing, Southern Governors can assert their authority under these extant laws, including, particularly under Section 1 of the Land Use Act, which provides that “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that State … .”
Additionally, AGF Malami appears to be unaware of the highly celebrated 1969 ruling by Justice Adewale Thompson. That the ruling was never set aside or varied makes it part of the laws of Nigeria when it comes to open grazing. It’s pertinent to state that the ruling was made in the context of the ‘farmer-herder conflict’ of that era. That is what we used to have then. What we have now is ‘herder-terrorism’ that requires new measures that should more drastic than the purports of that ruling.
In the ruling, Adewale’s court heard that it is the custom of the Fulani to move cattle from place to place and graze openly. The judge ruled that if that is the custom, it is a bad one because it is against public policy; that the custom has the tendency to lead to breach of law and order and unconscionable destruction of another’s property. You might add that, in this day and age, it has gone from mere destruction of property to destruction of lives.
That judgment is sound because it is consistent with the common law of Nigeria that says that any custom that is against public policy shall be set aside. A custom is not cast in stone. Nigerian laws only allow good customs. Bad customs like killing of twins are no longer allowed. In the same vein, bad customs like open grazing that destroys properties and human lives should be banned.
That something is a custom does not automatically make it legal. Therefore, that open grazing is customary to the Fulani does not make it legal or permissible, especially if it comes with the prospects of criminal trespass or terror. And in comparison to the spare parts dealers Malami mentioned, he forgot that they rent their shops and they conduct their business sans trespass, violence, rape and terror.
Further, as a Northerner and a high-ranking government official with access to intelligence, AGF Malami should not pretend that he doesn’t know that a significant number of these herdsmen are foreigners. Some notable Northern leaders (including the Presidency) have publicly confirmed as such. On this score, did AGF Malami consider what happens to Nigeria’s sovereignty when he argued that banning open grazing is unconstitutional? Is he suggesting that foreigners now have more constitutional rights than Nigerians, especially Southern Nigerians?
Not just that, these foreign herdsmen come into Nigeria with a swag to graze on Nigerian lands without permission and they are ever prepared to kill their host if he dares resist such brazen criminal trespass. And the Federal Government does nothing to check it. But once the herders get in trouble, such as now with Southern Governors, the same Federal Government jumps to their defense, as AGF Malami just did.
That’s unfair because you are stoking a situation where States (especially Southern States) will be propelled to resort to self-help, which is exactly what Southern Governors have done by banning open grazing.
MALAMI’s AN INTERPRETATION OF AG OF SAMBISA FOREST REPUBLIC –LAWYERS OF CONSCIENCE
Meanwhile, Malami did not only draw the ire of individual lawyers…he also drew that of the lawyer groups. On the frontline is the notable good governance/ civil society legal icons group, the Lawyers of Conscience.
Summerising the AGF’s utterance, its National Coordinator, Comrade Benedict Ezeagu, simply said: “Malami’s is like herdsman interpretation of the constitutional law as the AG of Sambisa Forest Republic. I wish him luck.”/ SHARE THIS