General News
SMBLF Rejects FG’s Proposed Livestock Scheme, Accuses Government of Targeting Middle Belt Lands
The forum, in a statement dated August 26, 2026, expressed concern over the proposed implementation of the scheme in Nasarawa, Plateau, Benue, Southern Kaduna, Taraba and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The statement was signed by the SMBLF Chairman and Leader of Afenifere, HRM Oba Oladipo Olaitan; President of the Middle Belt Forum, Dr. Bitrus Pogu; President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, Senator John Azuta-Mbata; and National Chairman of PANDEF, Ambassador Godknows Igali.
The leaders questioned why what they described as a major livestock policy experiment was being concentrated largely in the Middle Belt, despite the availability of extensive sparsely populated areas in parts of northern Nigeria.
The forum warned that although the initiative was being described as a pilot scheme, it could eventually be expanded to other parts of the country, including the southern states, if affected communities failed to oppose it.
The SMBLF, however, stressed that it was not opposed to modern livestock production, ranching or the development of Nigeria’s livestock value chain.
“What we reject is the opaque, coercive and discriminatory manner in which this policy is being pursued to the exclusive advantage of nomadic Fulani herdsmen,” the leaders said.
The forum said it stood firmly with the Middle Belt Forum, which it said had already rejected the proposed scheme, and called on communities and governments in the southern states to prepare to oppose the policy.
On land ownership, the SMBLF invoked the Land Use Act of 1978, arguing that the legislation did not provide a basis for arbitrary acquisition of community lands.
According to the forum, the Act recognises customary rights of occupancy and permits revocation of land rights only for overriding public interest.
It also argued that ranching was a private economic enterprise and that government should not use compulsory land acquisition to provide land for specific economic actors under the guise of public interest.
The leaders further expressed concern that the proposed policy could result in the establishment of permanent settlements for nomadic pastoralists.
The forum alleged that violent activities by some pastoralist groups over the years had contributed to the displacement of communities and occupation of large areas of land across parts of the Middle Belt and southern Nigeria.
The SMBLF said it would not accept any arrangement under which communities affected by insecurity would subsequently lose their ancestral lands to those they accused of contributing to their displacement.
The forum also raised concerns over the citizenship status of some nomadic pastoralists, arguing that the government must address such issues before implementing any policy involving the allocation of large areas of ancestral land.
It recalled previous initiatives, including the Rural Grazing Area (RUGA) and Cattle Colony proposals, which generated widespread opposition over concerns about land ownership, security and possible demographic changes.
“The SMBLF will not accept such a policy,” the leaders declared.
The forum warned the Federal Government against imposing what it described as controversial land policies on communities in the Middle Belt and southern Nigeria.
“Our lands belong to our communities that depend on them for farming, homes, livelihoods and survival,” it said.
The SMBLF demanded full disclosure of the proposed ranching locations, the legal instruments governing their acquisition, ownership structures, beneficiaries, security arrangements, the size of the lands involved and sources of funding before the scheme could be considered.
The leaders said that until the government provided satisfactory answers to these questions and guaranteed the rights of affected communities, the forum would reject the proposed ranching scheme in the Middle Belt and southern Nigeria.
It vowed to resist what it described as any attempt to seize community lands under the guise of livestock development.


