LAND, CITIZENSHIP AND THE DANGEROUS POLITICS OF ETHNIC OWNERSHIP: A Rebuttal to the Middle Belt Forum By Umar Ardo, Ph.D

The Middle Belt Forum’s 17 August 2026 statement on the Federal Government’s cattle-ranching policy is troubling not because concerns about land acquisition, consultation, compensation or security are illegitimate, but because it frames them within a doctrine of ethnic territorial ownership. At its core is a claim that must be rejected: that parts of Nigeria belong exclusively to particular ethnic groups and that other Nigerians may be treated as outsiders regardless of citizenship or constitutional rights. This is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the region’s complex history. It seems to have been a page extracted right out of a Stone Age Manuscript! 

2. The portrayal of Adamawa, Taraba and parts of Plateau State as exclusively indigenous Middle Belt territory from which Fulani people are historical outsiders is a historical and political revisionism. The Fulani are not strangers to these areas any more than other ethnic groups. In Adamawa and Taraba in particular, they have lived, farmed, traded, owned property and raised livestock for generations alongside other ethnic communities. Across the wider Middle Belt, long-standing coexistence is the norm, not the exception.

3. The MBF should know that Nigeria’s ethnic geography was never formed as sealed compartments. Migration, trade, intermarriage, political change and shifting boundaries shaped all regions. Reducing this history to a binary of “our land” versus “their land” is not historical analysis - it is a Stone Age ethnic territorial politics! Modern societies live in citizenship, not in ethnicity. 

4. The MBF statement effectively substitutes ethnic belonging for Nigerian citizenship, contrary to the Constitution. Section 41 of our constitution guarantees freedom of movement and residence anywhere in Nigeria, while Section 42 prohibits discrimination on grounds including ethnicity, place of origin and religion. A Nigerian does not lose citizenship by moving for example from Sokoto to Plateau, Kano to Taraba or Adamawa to Benue. No ethnic organisation has constitutional authority to declare any part of Nigeria an exclusive preserve. It is this kind of ethnic entitlement attitude that creates tension, conflict and ultimately violence in the country. 

5. The repeated association of “Fulani” with violence is particularly dangerous. References to alleged “Fulani militias” and suggestions that ranching would reward perpetrators collapse under constitutional scrutiny and factual evidence. Criminal responsibility is individual, not ethnic. Crimes must be prosecuted against individuals or defined criminal groups - not attributed to entire ethnic identities. If this principle is abandoned, Nigeria would descend into collective blame, where Boko Haram is attributed to all Kanuri, or militancy to all Ijaw, armed robbery to all Igbo, cultism to all Yoruba. That is collective punishment and incompatible with constitutional democracy and civilized behaviour. 

6. But in truth, beneath the MBF’s ethnocentric rhetorics lies a legitimate concern: land must not be acquired arbitrarily! No community should be dispossessed of its land without due process, and no lawful landowner should lose property without legal safeguards, including proper procedure and compensation. These protections apply to all Nigerians, regardless of who benefits from a project.

7. The real issue is therefore law, land tenure, compensation, environmental sustainability, security and public interest, but not ethnic identity as advanced by the MBF. If the ranching programme violates the law, it can and should be challenged in court. If compensation is inadequate, legal remedies exist. If consultation is required but absent, the process must be corrected. Illegality must be addressed through law, not ethnic exclusion.

8. In any case, the livestock policy is not an ethnic issue. Most of our people depend on cattle, sheep, goats and pigs for meat, milk, ghee, cheese, hair, honey, butter, manure, incense, animal blood, poultry products, hides and skins. In the villages, farmers use cattle bulls for carting, plowing, and hauling. Thousands of people wholly or partly make their livings from selling, milking, butchering, or transporting herds. Cattle and animal owners, thus play an important role in the economy and nutrition of our communities. With its value-chain, it is potentially a multi-trillion naira industry. 

9. Livestock development is therefore an economic and policy issue requiring modernization of Nigeria’s industry through ranching systems, veterinary services, improved breeds, water infrastructure, feed production, meat processing and market access. I believe this policy is aimed at establishing ranches, prohibiting open oscillating grazing that has been the source of communal conflicts in the country, and facilitating the establishment of wide range of animal feeds industries and water treatment plants to develop animal-related industrial bases. This will cover all types of animal - cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, etc. This way, beyond creating wealth through animal husbandry and its value chain, government would also be halting the perennial conflicts between farmers and herders, thus entrenching peaceful coexistence amongst our peoples. Is this what the MBF is fighting against simply because the majority of herders are the Fulanis? I think we should grow beyond that! 

10. What the MBF should concern itself with instead is the practical key questions regarding land ownership, legal basis for acquisition, compensation, operators, environmental safeguards, community benefits, security arrangements and impact on existing farmers and pastoralists. Whether beneficiaries are Fulani pastoralists or any other group is irrelevant to the legality or economic merit of the policy. Citizenship, not ethnicity, must guide the MBF’s evaluation of the policy.

11. Another troubling issue raised by the MBF is that of Wase region in Plateau state. The reference to Wase underscores the need for proper process. If local farmers oppose land allocation, their concerns must be heard. If elites are acting against landowners’ interests, the matter should be investigated. But the solution is transparent consultation and lawful dispute resolution not ethnic mobilization as adopted in the press statement. Lawful ownership must be protected, but citizenship rights cannot be negated on ethnic grounds. 

12. Citizens are fully entitled to oppose government policy and vote accordingly. It is legitimate to say: “We oppose this land policy,” “We demand consultation and compensation,” or “We will challenge this in court”. But it is not legitimate to state that the presence of Fulani citizens in certain areas is itself unacceptable. That shifts from policy disagreement to ethnic exclusion. And no one - and I repeat no one - can exclude Fulanis or any other ethnic group from citizenship of Nigeria or any part thereof. 

13. No part of Nigeria, including the Middle Belt is ethnically exclusive. Nigeria’s constitutional order is built on common citizenship above ethnic identity. The Middle Belt cannot claim diversity while denying it to others. Adamawa, Taraba, Plateau, Kaduna, Benue, Nasarawa and the FCT are all multi-ethnic spaces shaped by overlapping histories. If territorial ownership is based on historical precedence, virtually every part of Nigeria would face competing claims, producing endless conflict. Besides, as I always say, no ethnic group germinates from the soil like the grass. We are all at one time or the other immigrants in our places of abode. 

14. The answer to our demographic problem is fidelity to the Constitution, not ethnic mobilization. Every Nigerian must retain the right to live and work anywhere in the country. Lawful landowners must be protected. Government must acquire land only through due process. Compensation must be fair. Communities must be consulted where required. Projects must be economically viable. Criminals must be prosecuted regardless of ethnicity. Displaced persons should return home when security allows. Most importantly, no Nigerian should be punished for the actions of others because of shared ethnicity.

15. Let me conclude by asserting that the Middle Belt Forum is entitled to oppose government policy, but not to redefine Nigerian citizenship along ethnic lines. The Federal Government must also ensure that livestock policy is lawful, transparent and does not trigger new conflicts. Nigeria cannot be built on ethnic exclusivity. It belongs to all its citizens. Land belongs to lawful owners; the country belongs to all Nigerians. The challenge is not determining which ethnic group owns Nigeria, but building a country in which no Nigerian requires ethnic permission to live anywhere in it.