By Comrade Austine Adanwo

The Federal Government’s latest declaration that open grazing is no longer sustainable and that Nigeria must transition to modern ranching has renewed attention on the long-standing position of former Benue State Governor, Chief Samuel Ioraer Ortom.

Nearly a decade ago, when advocating ranching attracted intense political opposition, Ortom argued that open grazing was no longer suitable for Nigeria’s changing demographic and agricultural realities.

Today, the Federal Government is advancing a similar position, citing disappearing grazing routes, population growth and increasing pressure on land as reasons Nigeria must embrace modern ranching, particularly in areas affected by farmer-herder conflicts.

https://voxnews.com.ng/2027-ortom-reaffirms-southern-presidency-backs-tinubu-wike-akume-and-aondoakaa/

The question history must now ask is straightforward: Was Samuel Ortom wrong, or was he simply ahead of his time?

ORTOM STOOD HIS GROUND WHEN IT CAME AT A PRICE

Ortom did not merely advocate ranching in speeches. His administration translated the policy into legislation.

In 2017, the Benue State Government enacted the Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law, prohibiting open grazing and establishing a legal framework for ranching.

At the time, Ortom maintained that the law reflected the wishes of Benue people and was designed to protect farmers and livestock owners by bringing order and modernisation to livestock production.

The policy, however, attracted intense opposition.

Ortom was criticised by powerful interests and faced political pressure over the legislation. Groups including Miyetti Allah organisations opposed the policy, while his administration endured considerable controversy over its enforcement.

Yet the former governor refused to retreat.

He consistently argued that the law was not targeted at any ethnic group. His position was that anyone—Fulani, Tiv, Idoma, Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa or any other Nigerian—could engage in livestock production in Benue, provided such activities complied with the law.

His message was clear:

Ranching is not anti-Fulani. Ranching is pro-peace, pro-agriculture, pro-development and pro-modern livestock production.

ORTOM PAID A POLITICAL PRICE

Ortom’s position also carried significant political consequences.

At a time when political expediency might have encouraged compromise, he maintained that the protection of farmland, communities and livelihoods was more important than political convenience.

He was particularly vocal about the security implications of open grazing and attacks on farming communities.

Ortom even publicly acknowledged that his position could have electoral consequences, saying he was prepared to accept political losses rather than abandon what he considered the protection of Benue land and people.

In the 2023 general election, he lost his bid for the Benue North-West Senatorial District.

Whatever interpretation may be placed on that election, one point remains significant: Ortom understood that his position carried political risks, yet he maintained it.

That makes the Federal Government’s current embrace of ranching particularly significant.

Vindication carries greater weight when the position being vindicated was taken at considerable political cost.

NIGERIA IS NOW MOVING TOWARDS THE POSITION ORTOM ADVOCATED

There is an unmistakable irony in the Federal Government now acknowledging the limitations of open grazing.

The core argument for which Ortom faced criticism has increasingly become part of the national policy conversation.

The Federal Government now recognises the pressure on available land.

It recognises the disappearance of traditional grazing routes.

It recognises the contribution of uncontrolled livestock movement to farmer-herder conflicts.

And it is advocating modern ranching as a more sustainable approach to livestock production.

That was essentially Ortom’s argument.

Yesterday, ranching was portrayed by some of his critics as hostility towards herders.

Today, ranching is being presented as a potential pathway to peace and sustainable livestock production.

Yesterday, Benue was under pressure over its ranching policy.

Today, the Federal Government is moving towards the same broader policy direction.

Samuel Ortom saw tomorrow.

ORTOM ALSO RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ortom’s advocacy went beyond the ranching debate.

Throughout his administration, he repeatedly called for stronger security measures, accountability and investigations into attacks on farming communities.

He demanded that individuals or organisations suspected of supporting, encouraging or justifying violence should be investigated and, where evidence warranted, prosecuted.

Those demands were sometimes dismissed as political rhetoric.

However, similar questions about accountability for violent actors have increasingly featured in international discussions concerning Nigeria’s security and religious-freedom situation.

On February 10, 2026, members of the United States House of Representatives introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026.

Among other provisions, the proposed legislation calls for consideration of targeted sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for severe religious-freedom violations. It also references Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria and Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore and proposes consideration of whether certain Fulani-ethnic militias should qualify for designation as foreign terrorist organisations.

The bill is a legislative proposal and has not become law. Nevertheless, its provisions demonstrate that questions concerning violent groups, accountability and the protection of vulnerable communities have moved beyond Nigeria’s domestic political debate.

Years after Ortom called for greater accountability, similar questions are being raised internationally.

BENUE MUST NOT WALK BACKWARDS

While the Federal Government appears increasingly convinced of the need for modern ranching, concerns have emerged over the enforcement of Benue’s existing ranching framework.

This raises an important question:

How can the Federal Government be moving towards ranching while Benue, which pioneered legislation against open grazing, appears to be struggling with enforcement?

The Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law remains part of Benue’s legal framework unless it is lawfully amended or repealed.

It should therefore not be allowed to become ineffective through weak enforcement.

Benue people deserve clarity from the state government.

Is the law being fully enforced?

What is the current status of the Livestock Guards established under the framework?

Why does open grazing continue to occur in parts of the state?

What measures are being taken to protect farmers whose livelihoods depend on access to their ancestral farmlands?

And if the Federal Government now accepts that open grazing is unsustainable, what justification exists for weakening the principles behind Benue’s pioneering ranching policy?

These are not merely ethnic questions.

They are questions of public safety, food security, agriculture, land management, economic development and the rule of law.

The state already possesses a legal framework for ranching. Rather than weaken it, the government should strengthen enforcement, improve implementation and ensure that both farmers and livestock owners operate within the law.

HISTORY MAY YET JUDGE ORTOM DIFFERENTLY

Samuel Ortom fought the ranching battle when doing so was politically difficult.

He endured criticism when ranching had not yet become a widely accepted national policy solution.

He stood his ground when political compromise might have been easier.

Today, Nigeria is increasingly moving towards the very livestock-management model he advocated.

History often takes time to distinguish political controversy from policy foresight.

What was once described as stubbornness can later be recognised as conviction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdewpklnzwxo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

What was once portrayed as hostility towards herders can later be understood as an argument for modernisation.

And what was once considered a controversial state policy can eventually become part of a national policy direction.

Samuel Ioraer Ortom saw tomorrow.

Now that Nigeria is increasingly looking towards ranching as a solution to farmer-herder conflicts and the challenges of modern livestock production, history may ultimately remember Ortom not simply as a controversial governor, but as a politician who anticipated where the country was heading.

Signed:

Comrade Austine Adanwo

Convener, Alliance for Democracy & Good Governance