 The court affirms the right of states and police to enforce anti-open-grazing law. And on the issue of financial autonomy, state governors, Junsun and Hassan agree on implementation timelines. This is cross politics and I am Mary Ann. The Federal High Court, Abuja, has affirmed the right of Nigerian states to implement anti-grazing laws in their domains. This position weakens that of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abu Bakar Malami, who had said such a ban was unconstitutional and infringes on the rights of movement enshrined in the nation's laws. Well, discussing this with me this evening is Jiti Obunye and Mundi Bani, both legal practitioners. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. Thank you for having me. Great. I'm going to start with you, Jiti. Just like I said in my opening, this position, according to this report, weakens the position of the Attorney-General, who said that this type of ban was purely unconstitutional. And I mean, that interview that he did obviously got different kinds of reactions and blowbacks. But walk us through this court order, this new powers that states and police have to enforce the anti-grazing ban in the different states that have said or nodded and okayed it. For example, the southern states who have taken a position already on it. Thanks for having me. Let me just state upfront that it's not the decision of the courts that weakens the position of the Attorney-General. The untenability of the position that's found by the Attorney-General was obvious. The Attorney-General position was frequently weak. So before this judicial intervention, logic commonsense, constitutionalism, and legal precedence, judicial precedence all have weakened the position of the Attorney-General. The constitution is off-sighted by lawyers, but sometimes lawyers may not want to look at the victims, but normally if they want to engage in suffice, two sections of the constitution are very important. All the sections are important, but three sections are very, very important. And there are section four, five, and six. Section four defines the legislative powers of the federation and the states. Five defines the executive powers of the federation and the states. Section six defines the judicial powers of the federation, and meriting the courts and all of that. Now, by virtue of section four, every house of assembly of the state has the legislative competence to legislate within their states. And insofar as the subject of this legislation is not contained in the exclusive legislative list, meaning an item within the legislative domain of the National Assembly, the State House of Assembly can legislate. And so what we're talking about basically is the use of land. The land use act lays the governor of the states, the trustee of the land of the state. Some also that even the central government were to need the land in the states to carry out the federal project. It will have to request on the state for a parcel of land to use for its projects. That's why the federal government saved the land in the federal capital territory and some other federal lands, you know, all over the country, does not have the lands of its own. So, grazing is about use of the land in the states. It's about land use. And so it is within the legislative competence and executive competence of the state government to say, this is how we want lands in our states to be used. And I know that the other way that we have to their reference section 41 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of movement. But hey, that section is contained in the whole chapter called the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And trying in the Constitution. I'm not sure that any section in that chapter, which is set up for the Constitution, guarantees the right of the cow. But say that section 41, that governs right of movement, does not have the utterance of human rights. That under that section, every nomads is entitled to pass a battle over the country. It's permitted to destroy the vegetation and farm produce of farmers as he likes and that is protected by that section. And that in the state governments want to intervene. Did you first go to the National Assembly to seek the amendment of the Constitution? That is not an argument that anybody should even celebrate. So before judicial affirmation of the right of the states to legislate on the subject and the police and law enforcement machinery are really good to the state, should have the state enforce that law. I think that the position of that to the general was particularly we can be a general not to have moved that position at all. And secondly, and one comment. Here is another one, who should be very interested in peace, law enforcement, order in the country. Law enforcement should be concerned that under the pretext of heading, under the pretext of taking calls about foreigners from far from places like Mali, Niger, Mauritalia, Senegal, are in Nigeria with their arms. Government authorities have found this. So if cows will have to be rancid to ensure that people don't bear arms and saturates our forests with their arms, why shouldn't any reasonable person block that kind of thing? Burning away racism. So almost of course, they are going to get a position, you know, was dead or whatever and if it's good that the cuts are pronounced on the law enforcement, on the constitutionality of each part of the state of Mali. Thank you. I'm going to come back to you, but let me go to buy some money. Because there were arguments that were raised and I watched that video over and over and over again because I was trying to make sense of it all. But he did make a comparison that I am still trying to understand between their part-dealers and these people who trade in cattle or who rare their cattle and move about within areas. Now, Vaisalbani, I'm asking, if a spepper, I mean I understand the spepper-dealers have to rent a shop, they have to pay the landlord and that gives them the right to, you know, run whatever business they're running within that shop and if they decide to change the modus operandi of their business they still have a right to come back to the landlord to say, well I want to change that business in case that's not what he wants his space to be used for. But comparing that to cows and cattle that are being taken from place to place what is the basis for that comparison? I wish it was, you know, the attorney general I was asking this question. But is there really a basis for that comparison being that one person is paying rent a space that he or she has been using and this other person is walking around free and grazing wherever he wants and as a result of that farmlands are being destroyed. So is there really a basis for that comparison? Well, thank you. You said it rightly that that question should have appropriately been addressed to the attorney general who made that assertion. I must tell you that I'm still in shock when I listened to that particular argument that was put forward by the attorney general of the federation and the comparison that you just analyzed. You know, the position of thing is that when we, some people have been saying it, that it's obvious that the government is clearly in support of what is playing out recently where some husband have taken over the farmlands of many Nigerians and in the process, you know, killed many. In some instances, women are raped. In some instances, people who challenge them on what they're doing on their lands are being killed and nothing is being done. And I also have understood that when those people make a report to the police that the police looked the other way and nobody makes any arrest concerning what has been going on. In other words, there is a tacit approval from the government authority of what is playing out in our country. Now for an attorney general who opposed to be the chief law officer to have made the statement that he had made the comparison that he is so shocking, he's so clearly, clearly unbelievable. Now, in the case of a person who rents a shop, when you want to rent a shop, you approach the owner of the shop and you negotiate the rent for you to pay. And of course, you must also enjoy that facility without any causing of any problem in the property you are using. You are not supposed to kill, you are not supposed to rape, you are not supposed to do any damage. You have to pay before you use somebody's property. Now compare it to a situation where somebody who says is a headsman, you know, comes into your farm without any permission whatsoever, without any grant from you. And then ensure that it damages your farm produce. Everything that you have leveled for the entire year, he brings them down and not only brings it, he also makes sure that if you raise any objection whatsoever that your life is clearly in danger. He beats you, he rips you, he kills you in the process and he's been going on. And there has been this crisis all over, you know, both in the North and in the South. And people have been saying, look, why would government, you know, that standard king would allow such a thing to happen. There's something has to be done and the southern governors all came together and said, look, we must reinforce the fact that we have banned open grazing. That are a better way of, you know, tending to cows. And that is by way of ranching and which is actually more modern way of doing that. But the issue of open grazing have caused so much harm and damage and then have even threatened the unity of this country. And they have taken that decision which they have a right as GT has said, to enact according to the section of the constitution that is there that we provided for the state of assembly to enact a law, you know, governing an area they have jurisdiction. And they have jurisdiction concerning the land they have in their state. And for you now to come openly and now make the comparison that he did. I am still in shock. I'm telling you that many Nigerians have decided to doubt even their ability and competence and capacity of people who call themselves the advocate of Nigeria who cannot in any way make a very solid argument and convince people with logic and law because the law is cited on the issue of free movement. And GT has already pointed out that particular section is meant for human beings. The fundamental human right has provided for in chapter four is for Nigerian citizens and not for cows. Cows have no fundamental human right to protect under the constitution. And in any case cows that does damage to somebody's farm produce, you know, this is my farm. This is my property that I have owned. This is my property I have a right to farm. You now come in with your own cows and destroy it. You are infringing on my right to now shift to property. You are infringing, you are doubting, you are violating the provision of the constitution that gives me right to my own property. Meanwhile, you are asking me now to allow you a cow that has no fundamental human right whatsoever guaranteed by the law to come and damage my property. I shouldn't take any decision concerning such a violation of my right. We have seen cows in various schools. We have seen cows in various hospitals. We have seen cows become kings in many places, especially in Abuja and all over the place and all that. And nothing has been done. It's so irritating. It's so annoying. It's so provoking that we are allowing such a thing in this first century where we are still carrying animals on the road on the street. Sometimes if you are driving on the road, you begin to pray that there must be a prayer. You have to offer not to be attacked by cows on the road. Well, is that happening except in Nigeria? And we're saying that we have to actually tell ourselves that we are a civilized nation and a not law that would govern us here. And somebody now says, one, there was this argument that we didn't consult a people and his men before making that decision. I don't know whether there is any such right for you to consult any person before you're not a law that governs your jurisdiction. The second issue now is that it's unconstitutional. I couldn't cite a proper section that actually covers in him in that particular argument. But I'm really still in shock that the attorney general who say what you said and make the comparison that he did is telling contrary to our logic and law and even the constitution that he cited. Okay. Back to you, GT. The court has said again that they are rejecting a suit that was seeking to compel the president to direct security agencies to enforce Benoit open grazing prohibition and ranching law of 2017. Now, when I looked through it, I was wondering to myself, do we need the president to be compelled for this laws to be enforced? I mean, is it not the duty of states to adjudicate? I mean, if I'm using the right terminology here, should a president have to do that? Because this is already law. It's not a bill. It is a law that is already existing. So do you need the president to be compelled for that law to be enforced? Ordinarily, you don't need to compare the president to discharges executive functions. But times are different. And therefore I am of the considered view that I do not agree with that part of the judgment of the Honorable George that I just delivered the judgment. The reasoning in that portion of the judgment was that that is a constitutional duty and any breach that are off is purely or sanctionable by the National Assembly through an impeachment or a removal from the offing process. And therefore that relief being sought to compare him to discharges functions of his office with regards to that law in Benin State is not just sanctionable. I will provide respect to the adjudicists. I believe that the court was trying to be evasive, trying to dodge a very controversial issue. Look by law, and that's by an order of mandamus. A public duty by a public officer, including a public office holder that is not being discharged can be compared to be discharged by an order of mandamus. So here we are, every state in the country, every state governor, and this has come to a clean change, does not have the power, so to speak, to command the police instead to do certain things. The commander in chief of the armed forces, including the police, is the president. He is the one who appoints the IGP. The IGP directs the commissioner in the states. So if the president, for example, for political differences and for his aversion to the policy that was banning Nogun racism, or in particular, is aversion to the enactment of that law, will not want the police to help the state to enforce that law. It will support the establishment of that law, and given the way that law is housed, it will require physical enforcement, rigorous and vigorous enforcement to ensure and guarantee compliance. Are you telling me that the police has to be compelled or need an order by Mr. President to enforce laws which they are ordinarily supposed to enforce? I mean, if the law has it stated already, why do you need an order from Mr. President if your job constitutionally is to enforce laws? I started by saying that ordinary does not be the case, but we know that for political reasons, the police can be told not to do anything. It's happened in this country before. The police can be told to do certain things and not do certain things. In Anambra state, in the Igeera, one AIG under Abbasidia regime kidnapped a governor. It happened in this country. So if the police were told not to do certain things from Abuja, you will just hear an order from above. The Anambra state government had no such problem because it was using Amontepun to enforce all the reports emanating from Anambra states concerning all those, you know, cows that were moving all over the place. Amontepun call is the body that is responsible for the enforcement. The Anambra state may not have that capacity. And so in the have recalls, or they have recalls to a law called, the freedom I call to compare the president, to seek to compare the president to ensure that there is compliance. I think that that relief is just teaching the circumstances. But as I've said, ordinarily, the police ought not to be told to enforce the law. The executive arm of government enforces the law. The executive arm of the instrumentality of enforcement. Civil enforcement is the police force. Is the police force. And so in the police in a state whose commissioner is appointed from Abuja is given an instruction not to put his men and officers at the service of a state that is insisting on enforcing that kind of law. I'm telling you that the state governor will be limbed off. He will not have any power to force the police in the state to sue and force them to. And so in those circumstances, that governor will be right, or that stakeholder will be right to seek a specific relief to compare the police to act in those circumstances. That's the point I'm making. All right. Well, finally, Marisa Binder, because we're almost out of time. Southern states have said that they have insisted, as a matter of fact, that they're not going back and that the ban on open grazing in those states that have okayed it is irreversible. But just as Marisa Jiti has said, we seem to be politicizing this whole issue. And you have also made an assertion that we seem to be speaking on certain issues and not paying attention to the other. If, for instance, the states have said this ban is irreversible and then a party that is in support of Mr. President and their stance on open grazing finds their way back into government. Do you think that this is going to be reversed one way or the other? And what can they do to make sure that maybe for states that do not have these open grazing laws, what do they need to do so that it is marked in stone or carved in stone so that another governor doesn't come in and say, you know what, let's jettison this and then we have another reoccurrence in closing. The state government have not enacted a law with regards to issue of open grazing. I would like... I think that we lost connection with Bicel Bani so I'm just going to bounce that question back to Bicel Jiti just quickly because we are out of time. One of my learning friends says that the states that are yet to enact their own respective laws, you know, prohibiting open grazing and having duty now, possess to go do that so that there will be a law specific law banning open grazing. But my view, the capital is that even if the state government you know, does not enact that specific law under the Land Use Act, the Land Use Committee in every state can issue a policy and say in this case, open grazing will not be permitted and I think that that will suffice. It's not at the drop of every heart that we just enact a law. Otherwise, our strategy will be clogged with tons and tons of... Bicel Jiti, you know that we live in a country that every single thing is politicised including the fact that lives are being lost to banditry and cattle rustling but if you say that a certain group of people can just say that this is what we should... this is our stand under the Land Use Act. I mean, it's a word of mouth it's not a word of mouth it's an executive order it's a policy, it's not a word of mouth and even within that context specifically a Hezman then commits murder in killing the criminal code takes care of him he commits other offenses the criminal code is there but as a policy a state government can say in this state by virtue of the Land Use Act this is how we want people to be used in this state and this is how we want people to suffer any time they make legislation it may be good to make legislation but I don't think that that just the talisman that will end all these crises Well, thank you very much Jiti Ogungye and Mondio Bani our Bolshe legal practitioners thank you very much for speaking with us we appreciate it Yes, yes, my pleasure Thanks for having me All right, well thank you all for staying with us we'll take a short break now Thanks for the discussion