Insecurity: A call for amendment of extant laws

THE Federal Government, in its bid to end the incessant attacks on farmers by Fulani herdsmen in different parts of the country, threw caution to the wind by concocting an idea of establishing a secluded settlement in various cities whereby herdsmen can go about their cattle rearing business without any interference or clash with other settlers. It proposed establishments called Rural Grazing Areas or simply Ruga. Since the infiltration of the idea of Ruga, there have been a cacophony of voices against the proposed establishment, making the idea dead on arrival. While an inconsequential number of the citizens, predominantly northerners, have argued for the implementation of the proposed policy, a large number of the citizens have vehemently argued against it. Amidst the hoopla over the  unpopular policy, Fulani herdsmen were, on July 13, alleged to have shot dead Ms Funke Olakunrin, the daughter of a chieftain of the Yoruba sociocultural group, Afenifere, along the Ore/Sagamu  expressway. This raises the following questions: can the right to freedom of movement of the Fulani herdsmen be reasonably restricted considering the provision of section 41 of the constitution?  Secondly, by the provision of section 14 of the same constitution, how does the Federal Government strike a balance between the fundamental objectives and directives principles of the state policy, to ensure the security and welfare of the people, and the fundamental right to freedom of movement?

Section 41 of the constitution confers rights on every citizen to move freely throughout the country and to reside in any part of the country. From the foregoing, it is can be deduced that in spite of the high wave of the alleged criminality of the Fulani herdsmen, the constitution guarantees their freedom to move in any part of the country without any restriction.  Under the same section 41 of the Constitution, there are few exceptions, to wit: preventing someone that committed an offence or is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence, providing the removal of a person to be tried outside Nigeria for any criminal offence, extraditing a person to serve term of imprisonment where there is a reciprocal agreement between Nigeria and the country. On a prima facie look at the provisions of section 41 of the constitution, it could be inferred that the right to move freely is unfettered with few specific exceptions.

Advocates of the Ruga policy have frantically argued that all parochial and personal interests need to be jettisoned in the 36 states of the federation and FCT because of the benefits inherent in it. The advocates see business, money, jobs, food and peace in Ruga. Some proposed that a business giant like Dangote would own 50,000 cows by the end of 2019 and start producing 500 million litres of milk per year. Taxes and other levies would be imposed on rustlers, which would have the effect of boosting the Internal Generated Revenue of the respective states. They claim that the unemployment rate would be reduced drastically. On the other hand, however, the antagonists are of the view that establishing Ruga would result in permanent but surreptitious infiltration of the Fulani rustlers into their territory against their will. Incessant crises have engulfed various communities, between the original settlers and the accommodated brethren even within the same ethnic group.

• Former NNPC GMD slams N1bn suit against FG

One would not forget in a hurry the civil battle between the Modakeke and the Ife, the crises between the Hausa settlers and the Yoruba in Sagamu, the southern Kaduna and the Northern Kaduna crisis, among others. This writer is of the view that establishing Ruga in a state not indigenously  Fulani would do more harm than good. It is one of the primary and fundamental objectives of every legitimate government to ensure security and welfare of the people. Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution as amended guarantees freedom of movement but it must be noted that in order to achieve this fundamental objective, the government can prevent the movement of a person or group of people where it is reasonable justifiable for the security, peace and order in the society. One of the propositions laid down in Arch Bishop Okojie v A G Lagos State is that the Fundamental Objectives can be enforced and applied by the courts when there is a gap between the law and a particular provision or where the language of a statute admits more than one meaning. In such a case, the court will interpret the law or exercise its discretion in such a way as to make its decision conform to the fundamental objectives provided thereby.

It is proposed that matters that threaten our national co-existence should as a matter of concern be subjected to a national referendum and not the social media. Our democracy should have grown beyond social media commendation or condemnation. It is further suggested without any equivocation that with the incessant killings attributed to the Fulani herdsmen, an impartial body should be set up with a view to looking at how the Fulani herdsmen carry on their businesses. Where in the long run the committee can establish some societal hazards, imminent or foreseeable threats to the society, then it matters not whose ox is gored: the constitutional right to freedom of movement guaranteed under section 41 of the constitution can be reasonably restricted within specified geographical locations. This should also serve as a wakeup call to the National Assembly that the exceptions to the right to freedom of movement under section 41 (2) should be expanded to accommodate a situation where a group of people threaten the peaceful existence of the other. Then, it stands to reason that the right of such group could be reasonably restricted within a specified geographical locations and time.

I will conclude and substantiate this assertion by the proposition of Taylor F J in Alhaji D S Adegbenro v Attorney General of the Federation & ors (1962) WNLR 169, that though freedom of movement is fundamentally guaranteed by the Constitution but as a matter of societal exigencies, we as a people cannot shy away from the necessity of this approach (restricting the movement of the proponents of the crisis) where it is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. This is reasonably more justifiable where there is wanton of killings, prevalent cases of assault and rape, coupled with excruciating hardship of widespread kidnapping and abduction. A responsive government cannot but protect the sanctity of human coexistence, with a view to achieving its primary purpose, which still boils down to protecting the lives of its people and augmenting their welfare. In a society where these can no longer be maintained, what looms is anarchy, disintegration and at best revolution!

• Balogun, a legal practitioner, writes in from Lagos.