In the ongoing crisis between herders and farmers in Nigeria, much has been said about land disputes, resource scarcity, ethnic tensions, and the collapse of law enforcement. However, one of the most dangerous dimensions of this conflict remains largely unspoken: The quiet complicity of some within Nigeria’s political and security establishment.
How else do we explain the consistent failure of security forces to prevent or even respond to deadly attacks in rural communities? It remains baffling how, on August 24, 2021, bandits were able to breach security at the Nigerian Defence Academy, kill two army officers, abduct one officer, and execute him days later, without a single arrest made or credible explanation given? How did they know exactly where to find their targets? Such brazen attacks suggest not just lapses in intelligence but active sabotage or willful neglect from within. To date, none of the perpetrators has been brought to justice.
Even more alarming is the discriminatory or selective efficiency of our security apparatus. The same intelligence service that failed to protect its officers in their own turf was somehow able to organise a covert international operation to apprehend Nnamdi Kanu in Nairobi, Kenya. That operation was executed with surgical precision, demonstrating that Nigerian intelligence services are more than capable when the political will exists. So why has that same energy not been applied to dislodging armed Fulani militias terrorising communities across the Middle Belt and other parts of Nigeria?
This is where the Bala Factor becomes central.
During a televised interview, Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, defended the right of Fulani herders, including non-herders from outside Nigeria’s borders, to relocate and settle anywhere in Nigeria. His remarks, though controversial and widely criticised, were never withdrawn. They reflect a deeper and more troubling political sentiment, meaning that Nigeria should act as an open refuge for ethnic Fulani, regardless of legality, national interest, or security implications.
The implications of that statement are profound. It blurs the line between legal immigration and unauthorised cross-border movement of armed groups. It sends a signal, intentionally or not, that Nigeria’s territorial integrity can be negotiated, or worse, ignored, compromised, when it comes to certain interests. In doing so, he also contributes, wittingly or unwittingly, to the insecurity that has taken thousands of lives and displaced countless Nigerians from their ancestral lands.
This is not just a rhetorical issue; it has real consequences. Communities across the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria have borne the brunt of violent attacks by herders reportedly armed with military-grade weapons. And yet, despite numerous reports, video evidence, and eyewitness accounts, prosecution remains rare, and convictions are almost nonexistent.
What makes this even more alarming is that the violent clashes attributed to these herders are not occurring across the Sahel or other regions through which they allegedly migrate. They are happening almost exclusively in Nigeria. This suggests the motive is not merely seasonal movement or survival. It points to a more rooted objective: the acquisition of land, specifically Nigerian land.
The Governor Bala Factor — the
idea that Nigeria should become a homeland for all Fulani people across the
world — is far more than just one governor’s offhand statement. It reflects a
deeper, more dangerous political narrative that excuses, or even
legitimises, the illegal and often violent occupation of Nigerian territory.
History reminds us that the voice of one man,
left unchallenged, can shift the course of a nation. In
1953, Chief Anthony Enahoro made the motion for Nigeria's independence. It
failed, not because of a lack of merit, but because Sir Ahmadu Bello argued the
North wasn't ready, citing insufficient trained manpower. Though it was a
single opinion, it delayed our journey to freedom. Similarly, in the mid-1970s,
Dr. Jibril Aminu argued against free university education, claiming it would
not benefit the North and would only widen the educational gap between North
and South. Again, one man’s voice, unchallenged, set national progress back. Lastly, can you cite one name from your senatorial district, involved in the drafting of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? You can't because there was none involved; it was a one-man's affair.
So, when Governor Bala Mohammed openly declares
that Nigeria should become a grazing ground for Fulani herders from across
Sub-Saharan Africa, we must not dismiss it as a mere personal opinion. It
echoes a familiar pattern, where early warnings are ignored. Ideological seeds, once planted, grow into deeply rooted national crises. His
statement must be treated NOT as an isolated demand, but as a reflection of a
long-standing vision that is already being violently realised through the
herders’ campaign of brutality, land grabs, and unchecked aggression across
Nigeria.
By legitimising foreign Fulani herders’ right to settle
and graze in Nigeria, he erodes national sovereignty and blurs the lines
between legal migration and unregulated occupation. This rhetoric provides a
veneer of political and ideological protection to armed herders operating on
Nigerian soil.
In conclusion, does Section 15 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) override the rights of state governors or local landowners regarding the use of land within their jurisdiction?
Can we, in good conscience, reconcile the ongoing armed incursion and territorial occupation by Fulani herders with the spirit and letter of Section 15(2) and (3)(b) of the Constitution that promote national integration and guarantee residency rights? This question became necessary in light of the suffering, unprovoked attacks, and displacement of local farmers across the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria for decades.
Section 15(4) further states that "the State shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement among the various tribes of the Federation to the end that loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties." But how can we speak of national unity when armed groups pledge loyalty not to the Nigerian flag or Constitution, but to an ethnic heritage that disregards national sovereignty?
Let me be clear: this piece is not written to dwell on the atrocities, brutality, or lawlessness of certain Fulani herders. Rather, it is to challenge the dangerous narrative advanced by the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) and echoed by Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed that herders, including those from outside Nigeria, have an unqualified right to graze anywhere in the country under the supposed protection of Section 15 of the Constitution.
That claim is both legally incorrect and morally indefensible.
Section 15(3)(b) does not give anyone the right to trespass on private property, invade cultivated farmland, or dispossess local communities of their ancestral lands. It certainly does not empower individuals to terrorise, kill, or establish de facto control over territory through violence. The right to live and settle anywhere in Nigeria, while constitutionally protected, is not absolute or unilateral. It is subject to laws, local customs, and the property rights of others.
The Constitution protects the collective rights of all Nigerians, not just those of one ethnic group. Land rights remain the legal responsibility of states, and governors are the constitutional custodians of land under the Land Use Act. No provision in Section 15 or anywhere else in the constitution grants carte blanche for herders or anyone else to violate these laws.
And yet, watching Governor Bala Mohammed’s unrepentant defence of open, unrestricted grazing, even by foreign Fulani, and the deafening silence from his political colleagues, it becomes clear why figures like Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu have emerged as heroes within their communities.
They may be controversial, but their popularity speaks volumes. They have stepped into a vacuum created by the federal government’s absence, the indifference of security forces, and the helplessness of local leaders. They feel the anguish of their people. They see the pain, and they act, whether rightly or wrongly, because no one else is.
Like millions of Nigerians at home and in the diaspora, they have witnessed the collapse of state protection and the casual erosion of national identity. In the void left by lawlessness and selective governance, they heard a cry for leadership, and they answered. History is now recording the consequences.
If we are truly serious about peace, national unity, and the rule of law, then we must reject both the extremism of violence and the heresy of constitutional distortion. Section 15 is a call for integration, not a license for invasion.
We must respond decisively. The state’s
sovereignty must be defended. Armed herders exploiting ideological cover must
be disarmed, prosecuted, and removed. Political leaders must be held
accountable for rhetoric that fuels violence. If Nigeria fails to challenge
this today, tomorrow’s chaos will be blamed on today’s silence. We cannot afford
to treat armed invasions as cultural misunderstandings or political
inconveniences. National security must be blind to ethnic affiliation, and
justice must be applied consistently, not selectively.
If we are to reclaim the country from chaos, we must name the complicit, confront the enablers, and restore the integrity of our institutions. And we must reject, unequivocally, any policy, spoken or unspoken, that prioritises politics over people and ethnicity over the rule of law. That begins with the courage to speak uncomfortable truths, no matter how high up they go.
May God bless you, and may God bless the people of Nigeria
Barr Alex Aidaghese contributed this piece from Abuja, Nigeria
June 20, 2025
