The seventh reported invasion of investigative journalist Ibanga Isine's farm in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, has sparked fresh concerns over the enforcement of the state's anti-open-grazing law. The repeated destruction has resulted in total losses of ₦70 million in farm investment, according to Mr Isine, who documented the incident last week.
Fresh Destruction and Losses
In a video on 20 July, Mr Isine toured sections of his farm, displaying damaged irrigation pipes, drip tapes, mulching materials, and broken fencing. He alleged that suspected herders breached barbed-wire fencing, trampled cultivated areas, and destroyed recently installed irrigation facilities. “As of today, we have lost ₦70 million of our investments. We lost about ₦35 million last year, and the herders have doubled the losses with this seventh invasion,” Mr Isine said in a Facebook post. He noted that the recurring attacks have prevented him from resuming cultivation.
Police Promise Prosecutions
Commissioner of Police Baba Azare told Premium Times that the command operates a joint anti-grazing task force involving the police, military, and Fulani community members who help identify cattle owners. He acknowledged that policing limitations hinder constant farm monitoring but stated that officers respond to complaints promptly. Mr Azare emphasized that out-of-court settlements in such cases will no longer be encouraged. “I have made up my mind that if you want your money, you must go to court and collect it through the court. Henceforth, anyone caught will be prosecuted,” he said. He attributed recurring offenses to the preference for private compensation over criminal prosecution.
Government Response and Enforcement Claims
Government officials responded after Mr Isine's public appeal. The Commissioner of Police deployed officers to inspect the farm, while the chairman of the state's Anti-Open Grazing Task Force also visited. Commissioner for Agriculture Offiong Afor later inspected the damaged facilities and assured Mr Isine that the government was identifying those responsible. However, Mr Afor declined to comment on enforcement measures, referring inquiries to the task force. Calls to the task force's known line did not connect.
Commissioner for Information Aniekan Umanah, speaking on behalf of the Commissioner for Internal Security, stated that the task force has repeatedly called on farmers to report incidents immediately to improve chances of tracing offending cattle. He said prompt reporting has enabled authorities to apprehend violators in several cases, with affected farmers receiving compensation through the state's dispute resolution process. However, delayed reporting remains a major obstacle, as in Mr Isine's case where reports were made days after the damage occurred.
Legal Provisions and Accountability Questions
The Open Rearing and Grazing (Prohibition) Control and Establishment of Ranches Law, Cap. 107, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022, prohibits open nomadic grazing except within approved ranches. Section 30 prescribes a fine of ₦10 million, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, for convicted offenders. Where grazing damages farms or property, the law requires livestock owners to pay compensation after an official assessment. Moving livestock on foot across the state is also criminalized, with first offenders facing a fine of ₦500,000, one year imprisonment, or both, and subsequent offenders risking up to three years or a ₦1 million fine.
Despite these provisions, the seventh invasion of the same farm raises accountability questions. While state officials insist enforcement has improved, the repeated destruction—now totaling ₦70 million in losses—highlights gaps in protecting agricultural investments. Mr Isine, a nominal complainant in an ongoing criminal proceeding from a previous invasion, called on Governor Umo Eno to strengthen implementation of the law. He also urged the All Farmers Association of Nigeria, Akwa Ibom chapter, to speak more forcefully on the recurring destruction.
The Commissioner for Agriculture declined to comment, a stance that contrasts with Section 48 of the law, which assigns supervisory responsibility for implementation to the ministry responsible for agriculture. The case continues as authorities pledge stricter enforcement.
