 The Chairman's Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Ajival Abashiru, has said that there is nothing like grazing roots or grazing reserve law in the laws of the Federation of Nigeria. He said there is no federal legislation that the President can implement. Now, in his words, he says, and I quote, it is regrettable that the President has not been properly advised by his attorney general and the legal team. They need to go and check the effects. If anybody will implement any law, it is the state where those roots are applicable that can do so. And he said grazing roots law is not applicable in any state in the southern part of Nigeria. Southern Nigeria has its own law on cattle and other related matters. And of course, what's running us to have this conversation are legal practitioners, Obin Nachiku and Tunji Abdul Amid. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. Thank you for having me. Okay, great. I'll start with you, Baistalbina. Nigerians have criticized the President for plans to revive the old cattle grazing roots, where even after the governors of 17 states in the southern part of the country have put a ban on open grazing. And the federal government's excuse is that they want to help herders move freely and avoid issues with farmers. So, Baistalbina, is this the best decision for the President? What's your take on all of this? Okay. First, I think the President's statement was it wasn't really a good one, so to speak. I think that the President would have put it differently because when it has to do with land upon which the so-called grazing roots will be established. We know where the law is, where the law takes towards. We know, elementarily, we know that all lands situated in the state is in the hands of the governors who would seem untrust for the people of the state. So, I think to me the best way that the President would have done would have said that the President would have said that the federal government will consult with the respective stakeholders to see how they can create or create a grazing root so as to douse tension. Rather than come out to say that you will establish and already establish a grazing root, I think the statement wasn't supposed to be so. So, I know to me from my understanding of the land use art, I know where the statement came from. If you look at the land use art as it pertains to the Northern region, you'll see a portion or a section where the law alluded or mentioned or is simply later provides that the Northern land tenor, other than the land use art, can also be implemented. We know that within the Northern region there are roots. Maybe that's what the President was referring to. To me, I will not quarrel with that. Interesting. Let me go to Abdul Amid. The President's statement on that day during that interview on live TV seemed to align with the statement by the AGF while he was being interviewed on another TV channel who very vehemently disagreed with the Southern governors. He made it seem more political than legal. Now, and he went ahead to say that the President is not going to be or stand for a ban on open grazing. But where is the legality in what he said? Now, we're not lawyers, so help us break it down. The statement by the President does not have any legal basis. Apparently, the President was strongly advised by his legal advisor because the President was referring to a grazing, the only grazing is upload I would have that I know was out of 1964. And it's for Northern region, Northern region part of Nigeria, not for the entire nation. And that has been overtaken by the land use art, which vested the control, management and administration of the lands on the governance of each state and the local government as well. In other words, the coming into effect of the land use art eradicated all Northern region law that is outgracing or whatever because the ownership of land has been vested in the hands of what's it called, of the governance of specific states. In other words, the governance determines what the land should be used for, the control of the lands, who the lands should be given to and what to be done to the lands. So in other words, the President was not properly advised regarding that position of law. And apparently I'm not saying, from my own understanding of that statement, the President is not even asking that that law is just asking for the age to go and look for it, search for it. Because it appears the President is desperate to get a particular law that will protect the interests of the Fulani who are into grazing or the estimate. That is the way I see it. The President is doing a lot, a lot to come everywhere to find a way to support open grazing at this age and time. When the President himself is not even doing open grazing because I know Mr. President is also an elder. He has his lunches. So I don't know why the President at this age is encouraging open grazing. What the President is saying directly, if we have that what's it called, the grazing reserve law, which has been taken by effect because one of the land that I might as getting the land, I've been taken over by certain developments. So that means if that is... So you're telling me, I'm a bit confused. You're telling me that the number one law officer of this country is arguing against something that you are saying has been overtaken by other events, in fact, has been replaced in the Constitution. And you're saying that he... I mean, for a case such as this, we're expecting that an attorney general would refer to the Constitution. But both of you seem to be on the same page saying that this is something that had been jettisoned and replaced. So if the number one law officer in this country is arguing against it, where does that leave us in terms of the rule of law? We do respect the position of Minister of Justice and Commission and the Attorney General of the Constitution. He's political, short and concerned. So it's not about the best brain. We do respect. I want to refer to what you call that thing, God forbid that no one knows all the law. But God forbid that no one knows where to find the law. It appears that the Attorney General is not doing enough research to be able to know the position of law before advising him he's a president. And that's why he's a president. It's been misled to refer back to prison law that has no longer existed. The reason I was talking about was in 1964 where the land suits had came up in 778. And by that land research, no land is available for bracing. In fact, the land they have is very limited. So I don't know where they will get that. Even the case, what's it called? Prisoner's law, assist. For that law to apply now, otherwise it will be inconsistent with the life of the person. The lives that must be amended to accommodate it. That's the only way it can even be accommodated. And doing it is inconsistent. And they want to adopt that particular time. They must amend the land use act to reflect that same finding or what they want to do to create a bracing route and to allow for bracing routes in that particular law. As it is today, there is nothing in that law that empowers the federal government to declare any land for bracing route or whatever. The land in every states is being controlled and administered by the governor, especially if the land is in a party. So the land in the rural area can be administered by the local governments in the law. There is no end in place in the land use act where particular land is assigned to the federal government to be able to design how to determine what land should be used for. Let me go back to Mr. Chico. Can an executive order of sorts, maybe by the president, revive the Gazette on the old cow bracing route or make room for provisions if the presidency decides today that they want to have an executive order? Would it suffice? Okay. First, before I respond to that question, there are a few things I'd like to say. I'd like to say just to set the record, to put the record right. I do not agree with my friend when he said that the land use act, that before you can revive the old bracing route law as applicable to the Northern region that you need to amend the act. No, that's not correct. The land use act provides for a resort to the Northern tenor law. Provides for a resort to that. The land use act did not. In fact, the land use act also provides for a resort when it comes to the southern region. The land use act also provides for a resort. It's said that the land use act or a resort to the land tenor law existing before. So if you look at it, I want to say that the emboldening of the strength or the energy that the president has started in saying this, was to go through the existence of that law, the bracing route. All that needs to be checked or need to be ascertain is whether or not those bracing routes in the North were gazetted and handed over to federal government because section 49 of the land use act also restored to federal government. All lands belonging to the federal government. So lands belonging to the federal government still remains with federal government. Of course, again, the land use act also expires all other lands apart from that on the governor of the state. So all that needs to be done is to ascertain whether or not the land tenor law existing in the Northern region accommodated the bracing routes in the North and whether or not the same there was a gazette or the law permit or endows the same bracing route to the federal government. If the law endows the same bracing route to the federal government, it therefore means that those lands who qualify as federal land upon which section 49 of the land use act restored restored also to the federal government. Coming to say that the land use act is amended in order to accommodate that. No, if there's anything that needs to be looked into that needs to be amended in the land use act is that to resort to the land tenor law. Okay. All right. I think... Hello. Yes, go ahead. You want to respond to him. Go ahead. See, my colleague is missing one point. The government that was talking about has to do with Northern region. There was one person in the Northern region at that time. So you cannot say that Northern region is federal government. Four regions, how many regions are there at that time? So, regions at that time. So, you want to respond to him. Absolutely. Northern region, that region does not say particular... That's why Northern region has federal government. So, I am aware that certain lands are being erred by federal government before the land use act. I see them being erred by them. But that does not include the reserve areas that are forced within the states. The only land within the states, it is under the control and supervision of the government. What I mean to say is that I think they are now considering, I think they are now considering that they want to even adopt the grazing reserve law. What is being adopted in that particular law. I am saying, as it is today, for them to be accommodated, they most are meant to input that into the law now. They can't just go back and take that particular land and say it's not part of the law because it's not a regional law. It's not a federal government law. It's not a federal government law at that time. But it's not a federal government law at that time. We are a region. And that law was made for Northern region. Okay. We are a federation of the country. That's why I say that law, as it is, does not and will not be applicable except they are meant to be considered authority, the land use act. That's the constitution. Land use act is part of the constitution. You must comment on the constitution. We are almost out of time. So I will just ask one last question. In federal states, as it is today, 400 herdsmen have been arrested. 40 of them have been convicted. And it looks like the states are taking seriously the issue of standing by those ban on grazing, open grazing. And they're following you to the letter. But some states see it as a declaration of war against herders or people from the following extraction. And quickly, because we have just two minutes, how can we try as much as possible to clear this confusion? Because Mi'eti Allah spoke yesterday and they said the same thing, that the ban on open grazing is not just a ban on open grazing. They are reading between the lines and they say that this is also some form of a declaration of war against Fulani and herdsmen. Even though a spokesperson for the Fulani in Delta State that works with the Delta State government came out to say that this might just be a miscommunication of sorts. But how do we make sure that there's clarity in the messaging so that it doesn't seem like the South is declaring war on the North? Okay, so to me, first and foremost, it is the right of the states to make laws pertaining to grazing. Grazing is not in the exclusive list and therefore, if it makes a law, the law must be respected. And for me, I think that the best way to solve this problem will still be toing the line of or embracing political solution, political solution. That's what I think that can be done. If the president, if the president is desirous of creating grazing roots, say maybe in the North, the president must also talk, must talk with the governors, the president must have interaction, stakeholders must come together, meet and find out or fashion out a possible way outside law to resolve the problem. All right. Because we do not have time, let me just quickly get Abdulameed's position on this so we can wrap things up. We're out of time. I think the president is not happy matter. The president openly asking for grazing roots is throwing us back to the olden day. The president is to maintain neutrality. That's how I think it can solve this matter. One of the best ways to solve this problem is to ban open grazing and let everybody go to ranching. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Barista Chiku and Barista Abdulameed for being part of the conversation. We appreciate your thoughts on this particular issue. Well, for those of you who have been part of the conversation, it's been Plus Politics. I'm Marianna. Have a good evening.