Why the Federal Ministry of Livestock must be stillborn, By Ladipo Adamolekun

Nigeria’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. [PHOTO CREDIT: Official Twitter handle of Nosa Asemota | https://twitter.com/nosasemota]

After the over-centralisation of about thirty years of rule by brass hats had contributed hugely to the country’s persistent underdevelopment, a civilian president ought not to be foisting increased federal power on the country. The urgent first steps are: (i) immediate review of the distorted revenue allocation formula inherited from the military in 1999 by assigning 65 per cent to subnational governments and 35 per cent to the central government…

The announcement of the imminent establishment of a Federal Ministry of Livestock Development raises two important questions. First, is creating a 49th federal ministry consistent with the advertised objective of the Tinubu administration to reduce the cost of governance through the Oronsaye Committee Report Implementation Committee? Second, is an enhanced role for the Federal Government in livestock development consistent with reducing its functions as promised in president Tinubu’s 80-page manifesto that was released in 2022? 

While the seriousness and urgency of tackling livestock-related problems in the country are unquestionable, the solution is NOT in creating a federal ministry. After highlighting the terrible consequences of farmers/herders’ conflicts – “over 60,000 deaths across 22 states since 2001” – the PUNCH editorial of 15 July proffered an eminently sensible remedy: “The solution lies in commercial cattle ranches, which must be the prerogative of the states (subnational governments) and private investors…The government should limit itself to technical and financial interventions to support settled ranchers.” The contrary plea in the editorial of THE NATION on 23 July – “Creation of Ministry of Livestock Development should be given a chance” – is wrong-headed. 

After the over-centralisation of about thirty years of rule by brass hats had contributed hugely to the country’s persistent underdevelopment, a civilian president ought not to be foisting increased federal power on the country. The urgent first steps are: (i) immediate review of the distorted revenue allocation formula inherited from the military in 1999 by assigning 65 per cent to subnational governments and 35 per cent to the central government; and (ii) significant reduction in the central government’s legislative list that will be consistent with the new revenue allocation formula, similar to the provisions in 1954 and 1963 constitutions. Then, at a stroke, an over powerful and overreaching central government that is funding the establishment of Development Commissions for geopolitical zones and the creation of a new federal ministry will become history.  

Ladipo Adamolekun writes from Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America.