Press Release
On the 6th of June, 2016, the Imo Network Group (ING) set up a Technical Committee on the Agricultural Estate and Farm Settlement Bill.
This report has been approved by the Board of Trustees (BoT) for presentation.
Hon Lady Uju Onwudiwe is a member of the current Imo State House of Assembly representing Njaba State Constituency. She is sponsoring the Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements Bill. She is a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Technical Committee met on Sunday, June 12, 2016, and deliberated on the matter within its terms of reference, which was to:
A) Collate within a stipulated time frame, inputs of members of ING on the bill.
Discuss and debate inputs to the bill with a view to arriving at a decision on the bill; among others.
INPUTS RECIEVED FROM MEMBERS AND OTHERS INCLUDED:
The Technical Committee received inputs from members on the proposed bill, and found them very useful. The Committee also made use of newspaper extracts on the subject matter, including Hon Uju’s interview published in the Horn newspaper of Friday, 10th June, 2016. The Chairman had also consulted with a friend of his, who is an expert on these matters, and is also a close associate of the Honourable minister of Agriculture.
EXAMINATION OF THE BILL AND OBSERVATIONS RAISED:
The committee went through the bill and through the inputs of the members, and examined all in detail, adhering to the advise of the Chairman of the committee, that members of the committee MUST come to the table with an open mind, free from preconceived ideas of the government, and must divest themselves of political vestiges and thus treat the bill without political bias.
The Committee identified the core issues/content of the bill as:
1. The bill seeks to create the Imo Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements Agency.
2. The bill also seeks to establish the Imo State Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements in the three geopolitical zones of Orlu, Owerri and Okigwe.
3. The bill provides that the “the Governor shall by special instrument acquire productive lands in all the three geopolitical zones of Imo State for the purpose of establishing Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements”.
4. The bill seeks to make the activities of the Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements confidential, as the law would prohibit staff from disclosing information.
5. The Agricultural Estate and Farm Settlements would be driven by profit and feasibility.
6. The Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements would be handed over to investors under a Public Private Partnership arrangement.
7. The Governor would appoint three Agriculturists, one from each zone of the state.
8. The Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements shall maintain offices in each zone.
9. The Governor would have power to hire and fire.
10. The Agricultural Estates and farm Settlements would have the power to borrow money.
11. The bill provides for Livestock rearing and dairy production.
12. It provides for ranching, which has been understood by many to be a ploy to grazing, and heightened fear of insecurity.
The Committee also discovered inherent problems in the bill, viz:
1. The bill would empower the Governor to forcefully acquire land, even by word of mouth.
2. This forceful takeover of land could lead to transfer agricultural lands from the owners to others under the PPP arrangement.
3. The bill would inhibit farming by land owners and would empower a few to engage in large scale farming.
4. Majority of Imo people are subsistence farmers, and this bill could have massive effect on that.
5. Through the PPP arrangement, none IMO indegenes could have legal control of lands, and could use same for cattle rearing and dairy production, heightening the fear of herdsmen penetrating the rural communities, along with its security implications.
Further observations:
1. There is nothing in this Bill that the Imo State Government can’t already do without the bill, which makes one wonder what the real purpose for this bill is.
2. It is a badly written piece of poltical theatre – even making reference to a world bank project, which is bound to end or be renamed.
3. The provision for livestock and dairy production heightens the fear of legalizing grazing in the state. And considering that the Agency would continue to acquire lands provided it is profitable to them, the fear for legalizing grazing could be sustained.
4. The Committee further observed that government has not proved itself in the past to be a good manager of business concerns. Considering government’s divestment of its interest in Adapalm, Avutu Poultry, Concorde, etc, the government’s direct involvement in the Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements is very questionable indeed.
5. The provision that the Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements would be handed over to investors under PPP, is clear evidence that the State will not in the long run, own the various ventures, but will hand them over to others persons. Since the bill is silent on those that will qualify, it puts this process solely in the hands of the government, which gives room to cronyism and potential corruption. In fact many have looked at the bill as a land grabbing document.
6. Government does not need to acquire land in whatever guise to hand them over to investors to encourage agriculture.
7. Any investor who wants to invest in agriculture should approach land owners, with the support of government, or come up with a business plan and a proposal for the Government to assist them in negotiating with landowners and communities, just as is currently done for all other investments and types of business.
8. Government should make agriculture attractive, even to the youths, and not create an octopus monopoly. The government would better use their office to provide Incentives to farmers, such as training, information, seeds, fertilizers, soft loans, etc…
9. Government should be limited to the provision of enabling environments by providing adequate laws, infrastructure (including storage facilities and processing centers), seedlings, equipment and irrigation to encourage participation in Agriculture.
10. We have been advised that Northern state governments who supply food to the nation are not directly involved in Agriculture and do not forcefully acquire land from people and then hand over to investors. Instead they provide seeds, fertilizers and tractors for communities. If their model is working, we should copy same.
11. Vesting the entire power to hire and fire in the Governor is undemocratic and sustains the fears of the public.
12. The bill is silent on the Environmental Impact Assessment.
13. The provision for compensation to communities is vague.what of compensation for lands owned by individuals, and not communities??
14. The provision of schools and other facilities in the Agricultural Estates and Farm Settlements shows the creation of a new community of people. What if this community is populated by persons who do not share our culture and way of life? This could result in communal clashes and thus have severe serious security implications in the future.
15. The bill gives no right to seek redress on the part of any aggrieved land owner.
16. Whilst this bill will legalize ranching, and empower the Agency to acquire more lands, this could over time, create herdsmen communities in the rural communities; and in the long term, security implication might be severe.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above findings, Imo Network Group (ING) hereby rejects the bill in its entirety and moves that it be rejected also by all Imo indigenes, including the State House of Assembly.
SIGNED:
ING TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ON THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND FARM SETTLEMENTS BILL
admin
