Tinubu’s Livestock Ministry: Matters Arising
BY TONY EKE
THE creation of the Ministry of Livestock Development by the Tinubu administration may seem purposeful from the conceptual framework yet it’s beguiling in every material classification. As noticeable since his emergence fourteen months ago, there’s something cryptic about the policy initiatives of President Bola Tinubu as a veil lies beneath the potential benefits or whatever gains such a policy could yield.
A critical examination of the recent announcement portrays the President as someone driven by an impulse probably fed by an incipient pressure from the envisaged class of beneficiaries of the policy. If you relate it to the initial bill establishing the Nigeria Education Loan Fund(NELFUND) with discriminatory criteria before it was amended to promote inclusivity, you will glean the undertones from the sudden interest of the federal government to float a ministry for that purpose.
Something tells me that the creation of the Ministry of Livestock Development was not a well-thought-out idea like other ministries Tinubu earlier created and appointed ministers into after he took office. Livestock development is just a department in the parent Ministry of Agriculture, which even with the fractional split, is still large. My line of thought is also shared by a large number of Nigerians who are discernible enough to know that some waters may have passed under the bridge prior to the announcement.
As much as the creation of such a ministry may be desirable in the President’s perception, but it was better he didn’t do that in isolation. Yes, he may be passionate about reforming Agriculture Ministry ostensibly for optimal performance, yet doing so holistically would be more acceptable and guarantee larger, enduring benefits. Virtually, all Nigerians will welcome any good idea to grow all aspects of agriculture and improve its value chain for the good of the citizenry.
Granted, livestock production is vital to the lives of a people and, by extension, the national economy, but it smacks of unfairness to promote it above other sectors of agriculture. We have the food crop category which is very important, even much more than livestock, on a comparative note. There’s also the cash crops segment which is a money spinner in well-managed climes with arable lands effectively cultivated by farmers that get support from successive, sincere, visionary, and disciplined leaderships. What about the aquatic sector which cuts across the six geopolitical zones with inland waterways, though the South-South and South-West regions enjoy proximate advantage of utilizing the Atlantic coastal line?
If the President feels so dissatisfied with the poor performance of the agriculture ministry, he should take the necessary steps to unbundle it into four independent entities, each catering to the development of a particular area and its challenges. One could imagine having a ministry articulating good policies to bolster cultivation of cash crops in various parts of the country. Even without the gift of clairvoyance, one could speak assuredly of a prospective development of palm oil production in Southern Nigeria. As expected, most states will take a cue from the federal government and establish similar ministries to stimulate growth in sectors in which they have comparative advantages.
Such a move would not be deemed as a novelty because many countries and sub-nationals in Nigeria had experimented with it and made considerable success of it. A case in point is Delta State where the awareness of education as a huge industry justified the splitting of the large Ministry of Education into four ministries, namely Primary Education, Basic and Secondary Education, Higher Education, and Technical Education. So far, that idea had, to some extent, revolutionised educational development of the state in terms of accelerated expansion of schools, improved access to admission seekers, and timely responses to emerging challenges in the respective ministries.
The isolated creation of Livestock Ministry is suggestive of Tinubu’s volition of privileging a particular aspect of farming to the detriment of others. Although livestock comprises the broad categories of poultry birds, sheep, goats, camels, horses, mules and cattle, the likelihood of Tinubu’s overt support for the promotion of the aspiration of Fulani herders and their sponsors might take the centre stage of the ministry’s activities. This apparent apprehension is the fallout of the various pro-cattle policies of the former Buhari administration, which eventually failed due to public disapproval in many parts of the country.
From all indications, a tinge of geopolitical consideration seems to have coloured Tinubu’s decision. As it were, he may have chosen to subordinate national interest to the promotion of his personal desire ahead of 2027 general elections.
While a wave of discontent with Tinubu’s dismal performance is spreading across the country, its vociferous expression is most pronounced in the Northern part. So, in a way, the President is exploring ways of indulging the
North, particularly the Fulani ruling class, with a view to retaining its support to his putative second term ambition.
However, he needs not do that to achieve re-election in three years. A combination of good governance marked by verifiable sacrifices on his part and a reduction of the pervasive misery in the land could earn him a return. In other words, he should review his strangulating economic policies and recondition Nigeria on a visibly promising path than what obtains at the present time. Creating multiple ministries, each to look after cattle, goats, camels, horses, and their like would not alter opposition to his candidacy in the North if he continues with his wrong-headed trajectory!
*Tony Eke, a journalist, writes from Asaba, Delta State.
