Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation in The Acquisition of Land in Nigeria's Farmers-Herders Crisis

Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation of Acquisition of Land in Nigeria’s
Farmers-Herders Crisis
Clara D.S. Vande-Guma
University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria
claravandeguma@gmail.com
Abstract
The topic of this paper reflects one of the major problems bedeviling the modern day African
independent state: managing the geographical constructs European imperialists coerced into a
country called Nigeria. The paper keys into the controversial narratives generated by the
drafting and promulgation 2015 National Grazing Routes and Reserve Bill (NGRB) and the
2017 Benue Open Grazing Prohibition Law (BOGP) respectively, which are products of
legislation by the Federal Government and Benue State Government to mediate in the
recurring conflicts between crop farmers and cattle herders in Nigeria. Although both
documents outline recommendations on how land should be acquired for grazing their
specifications have been contested or received with suspicion from actors in support of the
Federal Government and Benue State Government. The article analyses how the process of
acquiring land is ideated in both documents using the parameters of the system of Transitivity
according to systemic functional linguistic theory and critical discourse analysis approach to
ideology. The findings of the analyses show differences exist between the perspectives in both
documents especially in terms of the specifications of such parameters as land ownership,
authority and participants‟ status. Whereas the wordings of BOGP explicitly empowers
various indigenous actors in the State to have a say in the process of acquiring land for
grazing, the NGRB empowers a commission with unilateral powers without explicit
involvement of state actors through its wordings. The paper concludes that the language of the
documents has been the major cause of the negative reactions from respective actors and
suggests greater diligence in the use of language in the codification of bills, laws and policies
by governments.
Key words: transitivity, ideation, ideology, governance and authenticity
Introduction
The topic of this article reflects a common problem bedevilling the survival of the
modern day African independent state: how the geographical construct (called countries)
created by and inherited from European imperial regimes after independence. In this case the
parties are the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Benue State Government, located
within North Central Nigeria. Specifically, this paper attempts a descriptive comparison of the
ideation of land acquisition in two leading contesting discourses in the ongoing impasse
between crop farmers and cattle herders in Nigeria. The principle sources of both discourses
are the 2015 National Grazing Routes and Reserve (Establishment) Bill and the 2017 Benue
State Open Grazing Prohibition Law also known as the Anti-Grazing Law. Both documents
Citation info: Vande-Guma, Clara D.S. (2021). Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation of
Acquisition of Land in Nigeria’s Farmers-Herders Crisis. The Griot 2 (1), 316-351
are products of legislation to mediate in the conflict between crop farmers and cattle herders
in Nigeria. The descriptions in this paper consider the processes of land acquisition prescribed
in both documents with particular attention to the discrepancies reflected in the
representations expressed in both texts. As a caveat, although the 2015 National Grazing
Routes and Reserve (Establishment) Bill is intended to apply to the whole of Nigeria, its
analyses is localised to how it is interpreted in Benue State in order to make comparisons with
the 2017 Benue State Open Grazing Prohibition Law.
The ideation of land acquisition concerns the representation of how land should/could
be acquired for grazing in both the 2015 National Grazing Routes and Reserve
(Establishment) Bill and the 2017 Benue State Open Grazing Prohibition Law also known as
the Anti-Grazing Law. The concept of ideation adopted in this paper is in consonance with the
ideational metafunction outlined in the Systemic-Functional Linguistic (SFL) Theory. In SFL,
the ideational metafunction is concerned with the use of language to represent “some
recognisable phenomenon” in the world (Halliday and Hasan 19). Language is indeed
phenomenally inseparable from human interactions because it is the dominant means for
communication. Communication is essential for meaningful inter/intra individual, group,
organisational or institutional interactions and realisable, with regards to language, when
information is encoded into text is accessible to all. When the information in texts is
referential in nature that is refers to the world beyond the text, such information is the product
of the ideational metafunction of language. The contents prescribing how land should be
acquired for grazing in the 2015 National Grazing Routes and Reserve (Establishment) Bill
and the 2017 Benue State Open Grazing Prohibition Law are ideational because they address
an existing crisis in Nigeria.
However, in the process of making reference to events in the world, we consciously or
unconsciously reflect our interpretations of what is reported or represented; that is we paint
the experience as we see it. To paint an experience as one sees it or represent one‟s
interpretation of experience is analogous to using language to construe experience as Halliday
and Matthiessen point out “language plays a central role not only in storing and exchanging
experience but also in construing it”; language constitutes “our interpretative base” (1). This
process of using language as resource for construing experience could be bi-directional
because language doubles as resource for interpreting and expressing.
The 2015 National Grazing Routes and Reserve (Establishment) Bill and the 2017
Benue State Open Grazing Prohibition law (subsequently referred to as NGRB and BOGP
respectively) address the same phenomenon, the conflict between crop farmers and cattle
herders in Nigeria. The scenarios in both documents are prescriptive because they outline
schemata depicting more desirable alternatives to resolve and/or manage the conflict. These
prescriptions also reflect the perspective with which the conflict is interpreted. Expectedly,
the language in both documents is representative of the desired alternatives, with words,
phrases, clauses, clause-complexes and paragraphs identifying acceptable and unacceptable
patterns of behaviour, actions, objects and species. In other words, the NGRB and BOGP are
texts, ensembles of desired alternatives for how land should be acquired for grazing.
In the context of this paper, text is defined as any instance of actual language use
intended for a communicative purpose, which can also be used as a resource for accessing the
textualised meanings. The definition agrees with views outlined by Widdowson, who further
equates “communicative purpose” with “the discourse” underlying a text and motivates the
production of a text (6). In alternate terms, a text is a vessel for conveying a discourse. The
options featured in the texts are probable determinants of the ideologies underlying the
drafting of both documents. With focus on ideation it is plausible to describe how land
acquisition is represented and the ideologies streaming through the options codified in the
corpus. A communicative act rarely occurs outside of prevailing social practices and
institutions defined by the cultures that characterise its existential framework. The near
doctrinal Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) construct of language as a social semiotic
encapsulates the perception that every communicative act or event is structured to codify the
ideology of a culture or norm.
The concept of ideology adapted here blend postulations by Martin (1992) within the
Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) hub and numerous views in Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA). Both angles have mutual focus with the tenet of Marxist theory concerned with the
societal dialectics instigated by differences in economic and/or political classes. Martin
introduces “ideology” to function as the “communicative plane” for tackling questions that
cannot be adequately addressed by solely analysing linguistic formations featured in texts or
by registers or genre. Ideology is necessitated by two questions, “1...., the meaning potential is
not evenly distributed across participants in a culture; and 2 for a culture to survive, this
meaning potential has to evolve” (575). Meaning potential is interpreted, in view of the focus
of this paper, to mean access to the ability to produce and disseminate discourse and the
control of the content of the discourse, what it explicitly and implicitly signifies. That is the
power to control text productions and distribution.
In CDA, ideology is discussed more often as conceptual patterns informing discourse
productions. Fairclough suggests the notion of ideology should be used “as virtually
synonymous with „worldview‟” (17). Wodak and Meyer see it as “…the more hidden and
latent type of everyday beliefs, which often appear disguised as conceptual metaphors and
analogies…” (8); and Bergström and Boréus are of the view that it be “analyzed as
consisting of ideas which guide the actions and interactions that make up society with its
institutions, social relations and power relations” (7). While subscribing to the
aforementioned definitions, the concept of ideology adopted in this article is anchored on the
close affinity of the etymology of the terms, idea, ideation and ideology. Through scanning
numerous resources (such as https://www.etymonline.com ; https://wikidiff.com ;
https://dictionary.cambridge.org ; www.ideonomy.mit.edu ; and numerous others) one
realises that both the lexemes ideation and ideology have meaning derived from the meaning
of the lexeme idea, which originates from the Greek term idea (as a prefix - ideo in ideology)
meaning “mental image or picture”. Ideology is the English equivalent of the French term
ideologie which means “the study or science of ideas” and was originally coined by the
French philosopher Destutt de Tracy. Ideation is the process of forming ideas. Ideology
emerges from the sedimentary deposits of ideas evolved over time most often within contexts
of events and histories shaping experiences of a group of people. Blommaert has pointed out
that “ideas operate alongside and inside material conditions and institutions; it is the
conjunction of both dimensions which lifts particular sets of ideas to the level of ideology”
(163). Indeed, ideology only becomes perceptible when it materialises through some form of
expression, hence the focus on ideation, in this paper, as the means for expressing or
accessing ideology through analyses of texts.
Ideology is used as that confluence resulting from the interplay between language
and power, wherein the latter operates to influence the instantiations of the former.
Fairclough identifies three sites of this interplay: 1 “the structure [and its system]”
comprising the “social conventions, norms and histories” constraining the channelling of
language to create/recreate communicative events; 2 “the discursive event” itself
representing the entire process both discoursal and non-discoursal; and 3 the “texts” which
bears “the imprint of the ideological processes” and constitute the source of interpretations,
diverse or singular (71). The first site which is “the structure [and its system]” refers to the
parties exercising the agency of encoding and decoding, in other words, those responsible for
discourse production, dissemination and interpretation. The second site is the discourse itself
along with the phenomenon, event or problem it addresses and the third, the text, spoken or
written conveying the discourse. All three sites or “locations of ideology” do not necessarily
invalidate the other, but function as simultaneous options for analysing how dialectical
relations between language and power create, recreate, enforce or counter-act ideologies.
To re-state in particulars, via aligning with Fairclough‟s “locations” of ideology, the
power “structures” addressed in here are represented by two levels of the political hierarchy in
Nigeria namely the Executive arm of Federal Government of Nigeria- the originator of the
NGRB and the Executive arm of the Benue State Government -the originator of BOGP. Both
NGRB and BOGP were executive bills, with BOGP eventually being enacted as a Law. The
discursive events are the incessant clashes between crop farmers and cattle herders, the
narrative process comprises events leading up to the drafting /presentation/signing of the
NGRB and BOGP; while the actual contents of both documents, precisely, stipulations on
land acquisition are treated as “texts” in subsequent analyses. Furthermore, ideology functions
as platform for describing how power relations are contested or reinforced as regards
differences in status between both tiers of government that is the Federal and State
Governments.
Thus it is taken a priori that the schismatic ideation between the NGRB and BOGP
instantiates possible clashes in ideologies of two actors, the Federal Government (FG) and
Benue State Government (BNSG). The option for engaging both texts to refute or confirm the
a priori position is situated in the author‟s preference to analyse relevant segments of NGRB
and BOGP using the parameters for describing ideational meanings in texts.
Further discussions in subsequent sections provide a synopsis of the contextual
background of the subject of this paper, the theoretical background- explanation of ideational
metafunction and ideology as planes for analysis, the analyses of data, findings and discussion
of findings and the conclusion.
Contextual background: Nigeria’s laws, governance and multi-ethnicity
Numerous issues provide a backdrop to the unfolding narrative about land acquisition
for grazing in Nigeria. These are matters bordering on the complex web of factors relating to
laws, governance and multi-ethnicity in Nigeria. Laws are needed to facilitate effective and
efficient governance. However, the preceding assertion is rather simpleton considering the
multiple influences of sources characterising laws in Nigeria, which have inevitable impact on
governance in Nigeria. Such influences should be understood within the context of numerous
histories affecting the existence of Nigeria- histories commonly identified with the epochal
terms pre-colonial, colonial, post-colonial, neo-colonial and etc.
Pre-colonial Nigeria did not exist as a country; the geographical location, to be
„christened‟ Nigeria was inhabited by diverse ethno-cultural kingdoms, empires and city
states, whose laws and modes of governance were dictated by their cultural customs and
traditions. With the imposition of colonial rule by the British Government, the diverse ethno-
cultural kingdoms, empires and city states were coerced into protectorates and eventually
amalgamated to create a colonial state called Nigeria. Between 1967 and 1996, these ethnic
nationalities within the borders of the Nigerian Federation were regrouped by different
military regimes into states, 12 in 1967, 19 in 1976, 30 in 1991, and 36 in 1996. The
encroachment by British Colonial administration resulted in the imposition of foreign laws,
foreign social institutions, foreign modes of governance and virtually foreign ways of viewing
the world. The roles of traditional systems of managing the society though not completely
eliminated were greatly diminished or made subservient to the laws and organs of the colonial
rule. Nigeria in her post/neo-colonial state has the mixed fortunes of owning the laws and
systems imposed by colonial rule and the surviving cultural laws and customs.
The evidence of the impact of these mixed fortunes is Nigeria‟s plural justice system,
which is anchored on three different laws: the Common law (laws inherited from the British
regime albeit modifications), the Customary Law (laws based on cultural customs and
traditions of Nigeria‟s indigenous ethnicities) and the Sharia Law (laws based on the Islamic
religion). According to Okereafoezeke, this legal architecture is fraught with confusion and
affects “aspects of justice, tradition, custom, law, and social control in the country, including
homicide, land, and marriage issues” (11). Considered alongside the factor of “dominance”
especially as a feature of governance, the scale tends to tilt more towards the non-indigenous
laws predominantly codified in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(amended), Federal legislation, and legislation by the respective State Houses of Assemblies
and Local Government Councils, and others. These laws constitute the official Nigerian
general justice system and are accorded higher status because “they are backed by the
enforcement powers and resources of the country‟s official governments” (Okereafoezeke,
12).
“The enforcement powers and resources” are not uniformly instantiated but rather
subject to the intriguing dynamics of Nigeria‟s three tiers of government, namely the Federal,
State and Local Governments. How these dynamics are instantiated should be more
perceptible within the context of Nigeria‟s multi-ethno-cultural setting. Within Nigeria‟s three
tiered federated system, the State Governments are somewhat „subservient‟ to the Federal
Government. But the multiple indigenous ethnicities are distributed across the states
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nigeria#cite_note-9); even Abuja Nigeria‟s
administrative and political headquarter, which was created to be a supposedly neutral
territory has indigenes – as the headline in the Nigerian National Daily The Blueprint reflect:
Natives commend Buhari for appointing Abuja indigene ambassador
(https://www.blueprint.ng/natives-commend-buhari-for-appointing-abuja-indigene-
ambassador). It is possible to associate States with particular ethnic identities but impossible
for the Federal government to be associated with any particular ethnic identity without stirring
up expressions of outrage from the Nigerian public, especially those whose ethnicities are not
favoured with Federal attention. These intriguing dynamics are at the heart of narratives
concerning topical agitations about, “resource control”, “restructuring” and “excessive federal
might”. The following excerpts the Nigerian media express these agitations:
a. NOTE: Three former governors of the South-South geo-political zone fought
for the thirteen per cent derivation which has made it possible for almost rural
state capitals like Uyo, Yenagoa and Asaba to now rival or even surpass long
established capitals like Bauchi, Yola and Abeokuta today. Every Governor,
Speaker, Commissioner and Local Government Council Chairman, as well as
major contractors, not to talk of the people of oil producing states owes the
three an everlasting debt of gratitude. Now, the leader of the group, Obong
Victor Attah, the acclaimed Father of Modern Akwa Ibom State, is back again
with fresh insights, ably supported by Chief James Ibori, as the nation embarks
on the negotiation for RESTRUCTURING. [Original emphasis] (Sobowale
n.p.)
The preceding is from an opinion column authored by a columnist, Dele Sobowale;
the subject is themed around the recurring debates between the oil rich states in the South-
South geo-political zone of Nigeria and the Federal Government of Nigeria, over which tier of
the government should have a greater control of the Natural resources found within the
boundaries of a State. More specifically, from states within Nigeria‟s oil rich South-South
region aka Niger Delta Region, actors have clamoured for more control over their resources.
The successes the columnist allude to is the 13% derivation fund policy
(https://www.neiti.gov.ng/index.php/revenue-allocation) put in place since 1999 wherein
States from oil rich South-South region are entitled to 13% of revenue generated from oil and
gas production in their respective states. Here, in this article, Sobowale mutes the continuation
of the same agitation as another theme, “restructuring” which expresses calls mostly from
state based actors for the return to true federalism, or the reduction of the overbearing power
of the Federal Government. In the following, another state Governor, the Governor of Benue
State- the originator of the BOGP- asserts the futility of the influence of the Federal
Government on 2019 gubernatorial elections in the state:
b. Federal might will not determine outcome of Benue election – Ortom
(Emmanuel n.p.)
Similar sentiments are voiced out in the following quote where the Federal Government is
identified with the coinage federal might by the former President of Nigeria‟s Senate Bukola
Saraki :
c. Don‟t be afraid; don‟t create fears in your heart, I have heard all the talks of the
opposition about using federal might. But we have seen it all. We saw it in
2003; we saw it in 2015 or don‟t you know that they used federal might in
2015? In 2015 with federal might we defeated them. It was you people that
God used then and in 2019 with those who have come to join us, we will defeat
them again.- Saraki (Olanrewaju n.p.)
Through his rhetoric, Saraki seeks to persuade his audience by reminding them that they had
been able to elect candidates of their choice despite all odds posed by the lack of Federal
Government‟s support or rather respect for their choices. The utterances in all excerpts
exemplify ongoing arguments between the States and Federal Government in Nigeria. In
each example, the actors representing the States or in the case of Saraki, Nigeria‟s Senate in
the 8th Assembly expresses dismay towards the Federal Government. The illustrations here
highlight concerns about resource control and restructuring, identify the Federal Government
as a predator with the alias federal might.

The instances of agitations discussed in the preceding paragraph are also aliases of the
quest for “authenticity longings” associated with “language loyalty movements” (Fishman
72). The emotional undercurrents are very similar to those associated with drives for language
maintenance and/or revival. These authenticity drives or agitations between State
Governments and the Federal Government in Nigeria impact on the nexus between laws and
governance, especially when it relates to which law should take precedence in situations
whereby there is lack of explicit concord between Nigeria‟s Common Law and the Customary
Law. The customary laws are mainly derived from the traditions and cultural norms of the
various ethnicities found in states comprising the Nigerian federation; and enforced through
the traditional socio-political structures of governance. However it is pertinent to note that the
Customary Laws in Nigeria are as diverse as the heterogeneous character of Nigeria‟s ethno-
cultural composition. According to Nwabueze for instance, “the different regions of Nigeria,
or its various nationalities, were, and still are, under different customary law systems, which
may overlap in certain specific matters (3). Figure 1 shows the traditional socio political
structures of two ethnic groups in Benue state in the North Central geo-political zone of
Nigeria i.e. Tiv and Idoma across Pre-Colonial and Post-Colonial periods which should be
considered in comparison with the official structures of the Nigerian Government in figure 2.
Pre-Colonial: Post-Colonial: Tiv/Idoma Traditional
structures
Tiv: Idoma:
Paramount
Rulers:
Tar Ojile (District)
Tor Tiv/Ochi
(Land)
Idoma
Ipooma(Kindred,
1 or more
Ityo 1st Class Rulers:
patrilineage)
(Clan) Ter/Ad’
Ipoopu (single
patrilineage) 2nd Class Rulers:
Ya-ingyor
Ter/Ad’
(Kindred)
Ole
Ya(Household/
(Household) 3rd Class Rulers:
compound) Mue Ter/ Och’
Ku/Ad’
Figure 1: Pre-Colonial and Post-Colonial Traditional Socio

political Organisation in Benue State, North Central
Nigeria 4th Class Rulers:
Based on: Ushe (2007, p.30); Okpeh and Ochefu (nd); (Tyoor/Och’ Ku)
http://benuetradition.org/secondclasschiefs.php
5th Class Rulers:

(Ortar/Och’ Ku)
(Tyoor/Och’ Ku)
(Ortar/Och’ Ku)
Figure 2. Political Hierarchy of Nigeria
https://www.hierarchystructure.com/political-hierarchy-of-nigeria/
It is plausible to argue that both structures in figures 1 and 2 are in mutual coexistence as
parallel options to be explored by the Nigerian citizen. However, variations exist between
both structures, for instance figure 1 acknowledges the place of the family explicitly, while
the place of the family is unspecified or assumed, probably, in figure 2. Moreover such
variations become problematic when the provisions of one system are in direct contrast with
the other, which is often the case when the Common law illegitimates a Customary Law. The
same variations could translate to the question who owns the land? An apt illustration of
controversy of land ownership is how the contents of the Land Use Act of 1978, especially the
contents of Section 1(below) are perceived:
Subject to the provisions of the Act, all land comprised in the territory of each
state in the Federation are vested in the Governor of that state and such land
shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of
Nigerians in accordance with the provision of this Act.
The reactions against the contents of this law are summed up by Otubu as follows:
… It can be safely said that the Act stripped off the ownership rights vested in
individuals, families and communities prior to its enactment and vested the same in the
Governor (15).
This is a vital underlying question in the ongoing conversation about Nigeria‟s farmers-
herders crisis. Within the official and formal order, as specified in the Land Use Act of 1978
ownership of the land is vested in the Governor of a State within the Federation, but Ochefu
assertion that “the patrilineage is primarily responsible for land holding and land allocation
and defence of members” reflects a truism that is a universal amongst most indigenous
ethnicities in the country (19). Section 1 of the Land Use Act has been discerned as
repudiating the status of land ownership recognised by the indigenous customs of numerous
ethnic groups in Nigeria.
Unlike the Common Law, the customary law is more deeply ingrained in the
consciousness of the Nigerian citizens. Whilst noting its contrast with the Common Law,
Nwocha notes that “customary law is observed routinely by the people who own them in their
daily lives” (436) - a vital observation to consider most especially due to the influence of
recurrent habitual behavioural patterns on thought processes that most often crystallise into
the formation of group ideologies. With due cognisance of multiple related issues, one could
deduce that the question who owns the land is the dominant remote cause of the incessant
crisis between crop farmers and herdsmen in Nigeria. The preceding assertion becomes more
admissible because the various stipulations on how land should be acquired for grazing in
both the NGRB and BOGPL specify in tandem parties to be approached for land, invariably
implying recognition of these parties as owners of the land.
Although the bill bears the date 2015, the NGRB presented at the lower chambers of
Nigeria‟s National House of Assembly, the House of Representatives came into public
limelight in 2016; the BOGP was presented to the Benue State House of Assembly in 2017.
Both the NGRB and BOGP were Executive bills seeking to be enacted as Laws, which for
BOGP came into fruition. The temporal sequence in which both documents surfaced in public
space is not accidental; the BOGP was intended to articulate the State‟s counter-position to
the contents of the NGRB and definitely signify a clash in ideologies on how best to manage
the crisis.
Prior to the appearance of the NGRB and BOGP in the public space, the country has
been witnessing incessant armed-conflicts between crop farmers and herdsmen in nearly all
parts of the country, but most especially in the middle belt region which is alias for Nigeria‟s
North-Central geo-political zone. Benue State along with Plateau, Niger, Kogi, Kwara and
Nasarawa is located in this region. The region has an agro-historical reputation, with Benue
State „enjoying‟ the status of being a major attraction as depicted in the following description:
The Middle Belt is home to some of the largest and most frequented international
transhumance routes in West Africa and the Sahel, playing host to the migration of
thousands of pastoralists who follow seasonal patterns along traditional and statutory
migration routes. Benue state lies at the intersection of international transhumance
routes, [of] semi-nomadic pastoralism, and cultivated croplands [italics mine]. Most
herders in Nigeria practice a nomadic or semi-nomadic manner of pastoralism – often
referred to as “open grazing.” This means that a herder will travel across large swathes
of land to nourish their livestock. While the Middle Belt is a major food production
and pastoralist hub, many farmers and herders maintain their livelihood on subsistence
basis. As conflicts increase, any threat to their crops or cattle are [sic] a direct threat to
their source of survival, forcing both groups to vehemently protect their own sources
of livelihood (Kwaja and Ademola-Adelehin 9-10)
It was against the backdrop of the crisis that both the NGRB and BOGP emerged albeit
attracting mixed reactions, as evidenced by these headlines published in the same National
Daily The Vanguard: Anti-open grazing law: Inter-religious body lauds Gov Ortom
(https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/10/anti-open-grazing-law-inter-religious-body-lauds-
gov-ortom) and Anti Open Grazing law: Herders appeal for FG‟s intervention
(https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/10/anti-open-grazing-law-herders-appeal-fgs-
intervention). The first headline voices support for the Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom,
and the second appeals to the Federal Government to rein in the powers of the State
Government; two contrasting positions articulated within the same space.
Both the NGRB and BOGP target proffering solutions to resolve the incessant
conflicts between farmers and herders. However, the preceding descriptions paint a very
complex and intriguing context which has led to the existing discord between the
recommendations for land acquisition for grazing purposes in both the NGRB and BOGP.
The major discord is how the contents of NGRB and BOGP are discerned by actors within the
state and the federal government. From the angle of supporters of BOGP the NGRB is
inimical to rights of the Benue indigenous population to their ancestral lands while proponents
of NGRB consider the contents of BOGP as discriminatory and an infringement on the
constitutional rights of herdsmen who are predominantly Fulani.
The concern addressed in this article considers the narratives described in the
preceding paragraphs as extra-textual fallouts from the lexicalisation of land acquisition in the
NGRB and BOGP. That is how land acquisition for grazing is represented in the texts of both
the NGRB and BOGP; hence the focus on ideation. Because the reactions to both documents
are mainly perceptual, this article targets analysing the texts of NGRB and BOGP from a
linguistic angle to determine the veracity of positions assumed both sides of the discord. The
following section provides accounts of the theoretical framework adopted for subsequent
analyses.
Theoretical Background: ideational metafunction and the plane of ideology
Engaging the texts inevitably requires considering how language is used in NGRB and
BOGP to represent recommended processes for acquiring land for grazing. Focus on
representation constitutes the basis for subscribing to the ideational metafunction in the SFL
hub. The ideational metafunction refers to the representative features of meanings in texts;
precisely, how lexical formations in texts convey our experience of the world.
For methodological convenience, Halliday and Matthiessen define “phenomenon” as a
category for depicting and describing how experience is codified in texts as follows:
A phenomenon is the most general experiential category-anything that can be
construed as part of human experience. The phenomena of experience are of
three orders of complexity: elementary (a single element), configurational
(configuration of elements, i.e. a figure) and complex (a complex of figures,
i.e. a sequence).... (48)
Phenomenon is regarded as an entity realised through an architecture comprising elements,
figures and sequences, alternatively depicted below in figure 3:
Semantics
Sequence
Figure
Lexicogrammar
Element clause complex
clause
element of
structure: group/phrase
clause
Figure 3. Typical Realisation of sequences, figures and elements Adapted with

modifications from Halliday and Matthiessen (49)
All three constituents of phenomenon (i.e. elements, figures and sequences) are
domiciled within the plane of semantics, the meaning component of the language structure.
The arrows enact the relationship of realisation between the constituents and properties of the
lexicogrammar, which is the SFL plane for analysing how words, phrases, clauses, are strung
together to form sentences- called clause-complexes. Situating phenomenon, the construct for
experience in texts, within the plane of semantics underscores the perception that language
constitutes the “interpretative base” for making and expressing sense of/about the world. The
documents of NGRB and BOGP are texts because they are actual instances of language use.
They are products of the discourses generated during the legislation processes that occurred as
part of the contest ridden socio-political contexts highlighted in the preceding section. They
(i.e. the NGRB and BOGP) have been key referral points in the heated narratives reeled out
by the actors for the Benue State of Government (BNSG) and the Federal Government (FG).
They have been referral points because they are texts used to express and interpret
meanings. As texts they are artefacts of the discoursal events whose expression and
interpretation has had great impact on the perceptions plaguing efforts to resolve the crisis
between farmers and herders within Benue State especially and with residual effects in other
states within the region.
On the basis of figure 3, the phenomenon is acquisition of land for grazing as
represented in the NGRB and BOGP within the continuum of events comprising the conflict
between crop farmers and cattle herders in Nigeria. The elements are the lexical realisations
specifying the participants, actions/activities, objects/species and circumstances involved in
the phenomenon; the figures are the proposals and propositions signified through the
combination of words and phrases to form clauses; while, the linkages between the series of
proposals and/or propositions as well as the resulting relations of interdependence signify the
sequences.
The systems of transitivity and logical relations analyse lexicalisation of phenomena
in texts. Transitivity analysis involves “determining the process type, participants, and
circumstances realised in any clause” (Eggins 266); process type is most often marked by
lexical items which specify actions, events, etc and the participants, animate and inanimate
involved in the process, which is most often situated circumstantially via indicating time,
place, reason, etc. Transitivity analysis is clause based while logical relations address relations
between clauses constituent within a single sentence. The analysis of transitivity relates to
elements and figures and logical relations, sequences (as given in figure 3). Figure 4 specifies
the system network of transitivity options used in analyses. Transitivity options are
distinguished based on the kind of processes they represent. Processes are usually marked by
verbs or verb phrases which preselect the nouns, nominals and pronominals representing the
participants involved in the processes in texts. Material processes represent doings and
happenings relating to the material world. Mental processes textualise the “world of our own
consciousness” (Halliday and Matthiessen 245) which reflects our thoughts, emotions,
feelings and senses. Verbal processes are clauses of sayings; behavioural processes reflect
physiological or psychological behaviour; existential processes indicate the existence of
something or someone and relational processes are descriptive.
These options of transitivity are useful deictic resources for linking the wordings in
texts to their extra-textual referents. They are vital parameters for identifying the particular
choices of words, clauses etc deemed unpalatable to different actors in the crisis. Through the
considering the configurations of the material processes for instance, one can identify the
actors who are assigned greater privilege of agency in the land acquisition process such as
who should be approached for sale or lease, or has authourity to grant approval.
Material: + actor; (+goal) (+range)(+beneficiary)
Mental: +senser; +phenomenon
Verbal: +sayer; (+receiver) (+ verbiage)
Behavioural: +behaver; (+behaviour) (phenomenon)

Identifying: +token; +value
Existential: +existent
Relational
Clause
Attributive: +carrier;+attribute
Circumstances: +circumstances
Not
Figure 4. System of Transitivity. Adapted with modifications from Eggins (228)
Identifying transitivity patterns and logical relations of projection and expansion in
NGRB and BOGP merely highlight the grammatics but translating these features to explain
their sociological import requires, in Bartlett‟s terms, “relating relations of power in discourse
as accurately as possible to linguistic features” (69). Here, this is explored by interpreting the
linguistic features on the plane of ideology, as already defined in the introduction, which is,
recalled briefly, modelled according to J.R. Martin and the sociologically oriented version in
CDA. Analyses on the plane of ideology, here, focus on describing access to the ability to use
language and its affiliate media apparatus irrespective of political and economic status or, in
this case, tier of government in order to identify the ideological undertones in the NGRB and
BOGP. In alternate terms, finding answers to questions such as: who is empowered to
exercise greater control of the outcome of the land acquisition process? Whose rights of
access to land are given greater priority? Are there any attempts through choice of wordings
to promote cohesion between formal and indigenous socio-political institutions of
governance? Is there evidence of textual exclusion and/or inclusion i.e. which actors are
mentioned and not mentioned? Are the requirements spelt out in NGRB and BOGP universal
or particular or are there any exemptions hinging on traces of bias?
The analyses still resorts to more clinical parameters of linguistics in the manner
postulated by Bartlett through “increasing delicacy” of analysing lexicogrammatical
codifications (69). Delicacy refers to more in depth differentiation of choices in texts in clines
progressing from broader categories to the point which no further grammatical relations can
go beyond. In this paper, delicacy unfolds via specification of various process types along
with participants and circumstances down to actual identification of their exponential lexical
items found in the texts (see figures 5 and 5b next section).
The resulting instantiations of transitivity are juxtaposed with mappings of institutions
of governance (figures 1 and 2) to establish the indexicality of the prescriptions in both the
NGRB and BOGP to the situational contexts addressed by both documents. This invariably
means identifying textual features with distinctive reference to formal or indigenous systems
of governance or features instantiation attempts to create cohesion between both systems. The
logic of constantly linking texts to their extra-textual or contextual referents for example
actors, systems, and prescribed preferences reflects the a priori stance of this article, which is
that the discord triggered by how linguistic coding in both the NGRB and BOGP is
interpreted. The main problem is remotely a linguistic problem because both sides of
conflicting voices have anchored their opposing views on what the language of both
documents explicitly and/or implicitly codifies. Hence, this article uses the linguistic-based
parameters of transitivity in SFL linguistic theory and ideology in CDA in analyses of both
documents.
Methodology
The working assumption in this paper is that the ideation between the NGRB and
BOGP instantiates possible clash in ideologies of two principal actors, the Federal
Government (FG) and Benue State Government (BNSG). The adopted methodology
combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to refute or confirm the veracity of the
working assumption.
Corpus Analyses and Findings: transitivity patterns and ideological formations
Our dominant phenomenon is the representation of land acquisition in NGRB and
BOGP. The samples extracted from NGRB and BOGP i.e. 1-4 below show how land
acquisition is grammaticalised in both documents. Grammaticalised means modelling
lexicogrammatical features (e.g. selection of lexical items and syntactic structures) to reflect a
particular semantic goal for instance the material processes codify how land should be
acquired for grazing and participants empowered with the greater force of agency and the
mental process the assessment of the extent of suitability of requests and fulfilment of
requirements for approval.
The equity or inequity of the contents of BOGP 6(2) (see 1 below) is relative
depending on what side of the narrative a person or groups of person are. The clause explicitly
recognises the owner, head of the family and Kindred Head as owners of the land, a
recognition that conforms to the customary concept that land is a communal property albeit
implicit cognisance, through itemising, of the degrees to which members of the community
can exercise control of the land. Hence the owner is assigned first place in this cline of
ownership, then the head of the [owner’s] family and the Kindred Head. This calibration of
land ownership is a non-negotiable universal in the eyes of the Benue state indigene because it
explicitly conforms to the traditional socio-political structures (previously outlined in figure
1).
1. ///Upon being approached by the rancher (Circumstance: contingency), the owner,
head of the family and Kindred Head that owns the land (Participants: actors), after
consultation with community leaders and with the endorsement of the Kindred Head
and the Chairman of the relevant Local Government Traditional Council
(Circumstance: accompaniment), may grant (Process: doing [modalised]) his consent
(Goal) in writing (Circumstance: manner) for One-year lease of the land
(Circumstance: extent) and on such terms and conditions as <<the parties may agree
upon>>(Circumstance: contingency)..../// (Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and the
Establishment of Ranches Law 2017, 6(2))
(3 actual participants i.e. the owner, head of the family and Kindred Head; 5 embedded
in circumstantial of the Traditional Local Government Traditional Council phrases i.e.
the rancher, community leaders, the kindred head, Chairman of... Local Government
Traditional Council and the parties)
But it has been interpreted as taxing for the rancher; who is assigned a subservient role
within the syntactic frame of a mere circumstantial phrase upon being approached by the
rancher. The other latent actors featured within circumstantial phrases are more highly
positioned than the rancher namely community leaders, the kindred head, and Chairman of
the relevant Local Government Traditional Council. Regardless of their occurrence in
circumstantial phrases, the word consultation in the clause assigns their referents great
leverage over determining how the land owners act. While the rancher made 100 percent
dependent on the land owners, is burdened with the responsibility of initiating the process by
approaching the land owners.
With paragraph 20(1-2) (see 2 below) the impression of infringement reverses and the
single active participant the commission is authorised to enforce the full instrumentality of
actions to acquire land for grazing, much to the pleasure of the potential rancher but to the
consternation of other parties empowered by BOGP.
2. ///The Commission (Participant: actor) shall undertake (Process: doing [modulated]) a
physical and geographical analysis of land use in each State (Goal) in order to
ascertain the best and most appropriate place to establish a National Grazing Reserve
within the State (Circumstance: reason).///
(National Grazing Reserve (Establishment) Bill 2016, paragraph 20 (1-2) (only 1
participant mentioned i.e. The Commission))
The clause obviously gives a single actor the Commission the power to act unilaterally where
BOGP recommends a multilateral approach to the same action via naming multiple actors (see
1 above). Many state actors read this clause to mean an award of the status of infallibility to
the Commission.
Similarly the herdsmen, the presumed ranchers, find Section 10 of the BOGP (3
below) most unpalatable and discriminatory. The clause names only one active participant,
who benefits from the process of exemption. The choice of the noun indigene and qualifier of
Benue State… has been considered one of the most provocative of the wordings in this clause.
3. ///Any indigene of Benue State <<who wishes to set up a personal ranch on his own
land>> (Participant: beneficiary) shall be exempted (Process: doing [modalised])
from provisions of section 5,6,7,8 and 9 (Circumstance: contingency).///
((Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and the Establishment of Ranches Law 2017, 10)
(One participant: Any indigene of Benue State who wishes to set up a personal ranch
on his own land, actor)
Furthermore, the choice of wishes, which construes a mental process, hints at the law
conferring total dominium to the indigene, a sense which is repeatedly underscored by the
phrase his own land.
The state actors, i.e. indigenes of Benue State, find the choice of the collective term
the communities in paragraph 25 of NGRB (4 below) equally provocative, because it
represents them in a passive role, with no influence on how land is acquired for grazing. Their
only role is to be informed, when the Commission makes the designation of their land as
grazing land known to them. Again the subservient role assigned to disadvantaged party is
grammaticalised by placing the respective participant‟s identity, here the noun phrase the
communities within the body of a mere circumstantial phrase within the clause.
4. ///The Commission (actor)shall cause (doing) the particulars of the land reserved as
Grazing Reserves in each State (range) to be known in the communities in <<which
the land is situated>> (reason) ..../// ((National Grazing Reserve (Establishment) Bill
2016, paragraph 25) (only 1 participant mentioned i.e. the Commission, the other i.e.
the communities, embedded in the circumstantial phrase))
Transistivity patterns in 1-4 are alternatively mapped out in figure 5 progressing from
the general category of the material clause down to the lexicogrammatical items. Further
within the choices for participants and those embed within circumstantial phrases in figure 5b,
non-textual categories are included to specify the systems of socio political organisations
represented in the clauses. Accordingly, the category indigenous (abbreviated Idg. in fig.5
also in 5b) indicates that persons assigned roles in the processes of land acquisition are drawn
from the indigenous or traditional socio-political organisation given in figure 1 while the
category formal are derived from the formal (Fl.) or official structures represented in figure 2.
Key: Pr. Process; Pt. Participant; Cir

Circumstance; Idg. Indigenous; Fl. Formal
[may] grant (1)

[shall]undertake(2)
Pr: doing [shall]be exempted (3)
[shall] cause (4)
Idg: the owner, head of
family, kindred head (1), any
actors indigene of Benue State(3)
Fl: the commission (2) &

(4)
Idg: his consent (1)

Material
clause
Pt goal
:
Fl: a physical and

geographical analysis
of land use (2)
Range: Fl: the particulars of the land

reserved as Grazing Reserves in each
Figure 5. Mappings of Cir: [fig.5b]
State (4)
increasing delicacy
[consultation] with
Idg: community leaders
(1);[endorsement]of the
Kindred Head and
Accompaniment Chairman of the relevant
Local Government
Fl:Ø Traditional Council (1)
Contingency: Single:
[approach]
by the
rancher (1);
collective :
Cir. [terms and
conditions
as] the
parties[ may
agree]...(1)
Location: in each state; within

the state(2)
Reason:[ascertain] [establish]
[known] a national Grazing Reserve
in each State(2); in the communities
(4)
Figure 5b Mapping of Circumstances in 1-4
The inclusion of the non-textual categories underscore that excerpts in 1-4 are not read
as autonomous texts but rather as part of the narrative unfolding in the social context shaped
by multiple socio-political factors, as highlighted in the contextual background, which
invariably functions as the ideological formations marking who is empowered by means of
explicit lexicalisation and/or languaging to enforce the doings prescribed in the BOGP and
NGRB.
Accordingly, the choice of persons assigned active and/or passive roles signal the
socio-political structures/systems constraining the wordings in each document. The BOGP‟s
recognition of indigenous systems of social control is lexicalised through the following terms,
the owner, head of family, kindred head (1), any indigene of Benue State(3), the overt
subscription to the official system is marked solely by the commission (2) in NGRB. The
occurrence of similar items in circumstantial phrases or rankshifted clauses (see figure 5b)
accounts for „incongruent‟ lexicalisation of participants based on Eggin‟s postulation that
circumstantial items are potential participants. Therefore, the participants realised within the
circumstantial items namely with community leaders (1), of the Kindred Head and Chairman
of the relevant Local Government Traditional Council (1) also count as participants derived
from indigenous systems.
The analyses in the preceding paragraphs yield the frequency distributions summed up
in table 1:
Table 1: Frequency distribution of processes and participants in BOGP 2017 and 2015
NGRB
s/n Document(s) #Clauses Processes Participants
Idg. Fl. Others
1 BOGP 2017 32 Material (29) 29 19 13

(90.62%)
Relational (2) (47.54%) (31.14%) (21.31%)
(6.25%)
Mental (1) (3.12%)
2 2015 NGRB 34 Material 5 26 5
(28)(82.35%)
Relational (5)
(14.70%) (13.88%) (72.22%) (13.88%)
Mental (1) (2.94%)
Key: Idg.: indigenous; Fl.: formal/official
Material process features more frequently in both documents than the relative and
mental processes for the reason that it is used to represent doings. This pattern of ideation is
no coincidence because both the NGRB and BOGP are intentionally designed to prescribe
what should be done to resolve/manage the recurring crisis between crop farmers and cattle
herders. The choices of participants varies also, with indigenous participants occurring higher
in BOGP than in NGRB while participants representing official government systems are
assigned more roles in NGRB than in BOGP. Implications of these lexicalised options are
discussed below.
Discussions: Unfolding the discordant Ideation between BOGP 2017 and 2015 NGRB
It has been considered a priori that the wordings of BOGP 2017 and 2015 NGRB are
constrained by opposing ideologies. Both documents are emergent from the narratives
generated by the conflicts between herders and farmers in Nigeria. Situated within the
complex web of Nigeria‟s laws, governance and multi-ethnicity, the languaging in both
documents reveals what systems of governance or social control are dominantly subscribed to
by their authors especially as it relates to the question(s), who owns the land and should be
assigned more active and/or passive roles in the acquisition of land for grazing?
According to the analyses summed up in table 1 in the previous section, the material
clause has the highest frequency of realisation. Most often the processes in material clauses
enact doings. Series of doings are sine qua non prerequisites for acquiring land for grazing;
hence the wordings of target segments of BOGP and NGRB feature clauses specifying how
land should be acquired for grazing, the people empowered to be involved in the processes of
acquisition and the attendant circumstance. Therefore, the predominance of material processes
in the corpus is not accidental but rather underscores the perception that the texts are social
semiotic extensions of their social context or the phenomenon addressed by BOGP and
NGRB.
As social semiotic extensions, both the NGRB and BOGP reflect the perspective of
the forces behind their drafting. That is the controlling parties responsible for their production
and dissemination: the Benue State Government and the Federal Government of Nigeria. The
discursive event, the crisis between crop farmers and herdsmen/animal pastoralist is the
common phenomenon addressed by both documents. The intended discourse is multilayered:
they both scheme out solutions to the crisis, but their solutions reflect different visions of the
common problem, hence the mixed reactions from the intended beneficiaries.
The ideation or rather representation of land acquisition in BOGP 2017 bear more
proximate reflexion of its socio-political context because it explicitly recognises the role of
participants from both the indigenous and formal or official socio-political structures. In
contrast, 2015 NGRB has high potential to be construed as rather too exclusive because it
aligns more with the official socio-political context than the indigenous systems. Because of
the silence on the role of indigenous participants, NGRB leaves room for misinterpretation.
The broad term, the communities, needs to be broken down to explicitly itemise the respective
levels of ownership e.g. the actual land title holder, the head of his or her family, and other
communally recognised representatives. Rather than situate the power of acquiring land in a
single party, the Commission, adopting the multilateral approach involving other stakeholders
could eliminate the suspicion in the minds of most state actors. Similarly, the phrase any
indigene of Benue State should be qualified with more inclusive terms.
The nature of the roles assigned participants also vary; using the options active and/or
passive, one could consider that the effect of their functions in the process is constrained. In
the BOGP, participants drawn from the indigenous systems enjoy active roles as realised by
the verbs grant in 1 and incongruently through nominals consultation and endorsement. The
former enacts the force of agency exercised by the actors i.e. the owner, head of family,
kindred head, to allow access to possession of acquiring land; the phrases comprising the
nominals are more or less compressed alternatives of the clauses: (a) the owner, head of
family, kindred head consult(ed) with community leaders and (b) the Kindred Head and
Chairman of ...Local Government Traditional Council endorse(ed).... The verb consults or its
nominal consultation connotes that the force of agency is not borne solely by the owner, head
of family, kindred head rather it reflects dependence on the feedback to be given by the
community leaders. In (b) the connotation places the force of agency on the Kindred Head
and Chairman of ...Local Government Traditional Council. The kindred head is English term
for the 5th class traditional rulers while the Chairman of the Local Government Traditional
Council is the 2nd class traditional ruler (see figure 1).
In addition, the official system that is the Benue State Government is lexicalised
through the Department, the Commissioner and the Governor; and feature mainly in active
roles, most often assigned with primary force of agency:
5. ///The Department [participant: actor] shall undertake or cause to be
undertaken[process: doing] by professionals[circumstance: means] an Environmental
Impact Assessment of the Land applied for by the rancher [participant: range]///;
(Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and the Establishment of Ranches Law 2017, 6 (4))
6. ///The Commissioner [participant: actor] upon receipt of the recommendations of the
Department, the owner of the land, family head and Kindred Head and the community
within which the land is situated [circumstance: contingency] forward [process: doing]
a report [participant: goal] thereon to the Governor [circumstance: location]// who
[participant: actor] may,// if satisfied that the best interest of the State will be served
[circumstance: contingency]//, approve [process: doing] the issuance of a ranching
permit to the rancher [participant: goal]./// (Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and the
Establishment of Ranches Law 2017, 7(1))
In 5, the force of agency is assigned to the Department and in 6, the Commissioner and the
Governor via anaphoric relations with who. 6, moreover, instantiates efforts to align processes
within the official and indigenous structures; thus, the action of the Commissioner is
dependent on the contingency of recommendations (nominalisation for the doing,
recommend) of the Department, the owner of the land, family head and Kindred Head and the
community within which the land is situated.
In contrast, items lexicalising the Federal Government in the 2015 NGRB enjoy the
sole force of agency as exemplified previously in 2, 4 and 7 below:
7. ///The Commission [participant: token] is [process: identifying] hereby empowered to
acquire land [value] in any part of the Federation [circumstance: location] for the
establishing Grazing Reserves [circumstance: reason].///
7 is a relational clause specifying the nature of the authority assigned to the Commission to
execute in the course of acquiring land in 2015 NGRB. Where another participant is
mentioned in the same co-text as the Commissioner, that participant is assigned a more
passive role as is the case in 2 where the phrase a physical and geographical analysis of land
use in each State is the goal, a passive participant. The term with nearest indexical relations
with the indigenous structures is the community or communities and features in passive roles
within the processes prescribed in 2015 NGRB. In 4, for instance, the term, communities,
provides qualifying information about location for establishing grazing reserves but none
about the inhabitants or the people.
Conclusion
Discussions have been anchored on the concepts of ideation, language, ideology and
language as a social semiotics. Through analyses of transitivity [patterns] of the Systemic-
Functional Linguistic (SFL) and ideological formations, it has been possible to describe
dissenting perspectives from which the processes for acquiring land are represented in both
the Benue Open-Grazing Prohibition and the Establishment of Ranches Law of 2017 (BOGP)
and the National Grazing Reserve (Establishment) Bill of 2015. The source of dissent
established is the difference in underlying ideologies constraining the wordings of
prescriptions in both documents.
The underlying ideology is construed here to reflect the socio-political structures and
systems subscribed to in the BOGP and NGRB. This is taken note of given the backdrop of
contextual issues surrounding the drafting of both documents. Hence, considered as
mediations in Nigeria‟s farmers-herders‟ crisis, how both documents tackle question, who
owns the land and should have a say on how it should be devised for grazing contribute
massively to the unfolding narrative about the conflict. The contributions based on
observation of the respective segments focused prescribing how grazing land should be
acquired have been shown to be conflicting, open to multiple controversial interpretations.
The topic of this paper is a major part of controversial narratives questioning Nigeria‟s
nationhood through calls for resource control, restructuring and the reduction of Federal
might. The dissonance between 2015 NGRB and BOGPL 2017 instantiates the challenge
faced by the modern day African independent state which is the dilemma of managing its
mixed wealth of indigenous systems of social control and received forms of social control.
The paper therefore concludes that the controversy between 2015 NGRB and BOGP
2017 is language related because in codifying the bill and the law too much room has been
left for misinterpretation. The BOGP 2017 has been interpreted as impeding on the rights of
other Nigerians, who are not natives of Benue State for e.g. the Fulani herders and the NGRB,
an impediment on the rights of the indigenous ethnicities in Benue State and an encroachment
by the Federal Government on the rights of the Benue State Government to promulgate laws
within the State. It is imperative that language be given due consideration in the process of
codifying policies and laws.
Works Cited
Bartlett, T. “Mapping Distinction: Towards a Systemic Representation of Power in
Language.” Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in
Social Change. Eds. Young, L. and C. Harrison.London and New York: Continuum, 2004.
68-84. Print
Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and the Establishment of Ranches Law 2017. Print
Benue State Traditional Council 2018. http://benuetradition.org/secondclasschiefs.php
5 March 2019. Web
Bergström, Göran and Kristina Boréus “Analyzing Text and Discourse in the Social Sciences”
Eds: Boréus Kristina and Göran Bergström. Analyzing Text and Discourse: Eight
Approaches for Social Sciences. Los Angeles and London:Sage Publications. 2017.
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- Web.
Blommaert, Jan Discourse: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press. 2005. Print
Eggins, Susanne An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics London and New York:
Continuum Books, 1994. Print.
Emmanuel, Hope A. “Federal might will not determine outcome of Benue election.” Daily
Trust 9 January 2019. https://dailytrust.com/federal-might-will-not-determine-
outcome-of-benue-election-ortom. Web.
Fairclough, Norman Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group Limited,

1995.Print
Federal Government of Nigeria (1978) Land Use Act. Section (1) Print
Fishman, Aaron J. “Language Maintenance and Ethnicity.” The Rise and Fall of Ethnic
Revival:Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity. Eds: Fishman, Aaron J., M.H.
Gertner, E.G. Lowry and W.G. Milan, et al. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1985. 57-76. Print.
Halliday, M.A.K. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience through Meaning: a

Language Based Approach to Cognition. New York: Continuum Books Publishers,
1999. Print
--- An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004.
Print.
--- Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar4th ed. Oxon and New York:
Routledge, 2014.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/270705/mod_folder/content/0/v. 8th June
2019 Web.
Halliday, Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Print.
Hierarchy structure. 2018. 5th March 2019 <https://www.hierarchystructure.com/political-

hierarchy-of-nigeria/>.
https://www.neiti.gov.ng/index.php/revenue-allocation
Iorchir, Donald “Natives commend Buhari for appointing Abuja indigene ambassador”
The Blueprint July 6 2020 https://www.blueprint.ng/natives-commend-buhari-for-
appointing-abuja-indigene-ambassador Web.
Kwaja, Chris M.A. and Bukola I. Ademola-Adelehin The Implications Open Grazing
Prohibition & Ranches Establishment Law on Farmer-Herder Relations in the Middle
belt of Nigeria Search for common ground 2017 https://www.sfcg.org
Martin, James R. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992. Print
National Grazing Routes and Reserve (Establishment) Bill 2015
Nwabueze, Remigius “The Dynamics and Genius of Nigeria‟s Indigenous Legal Order”
Indigenous Law Journal 1 Spring 2002 153-200
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Remigius_Nwabu
Web.
Nwocha, Matthew E. “Customary Law, Social Development and Administration of Justice in
Nigeria.” Beijing Law Review, 7, 430-442. 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2016.74034
Okereafoezeke, Nonso Law and Justice in Post Colonial Nigeria: Conflicts and Interactions
between Native and Foreign Systems of Social Control in Igbo. Westport, C.T.:
Greenwood Press, 2002. www.questia.com. Web. 5th March 2019.
Okpeh, O.O. and Y. A. Ochefu. “The Idoma Ethnic Group: a Historical and Cultural
Setting.” https://www.academia.edu/9195474/The_Idoma_of_Central_Nigeria Web.
5th March 2019
Olanrewaju, L. “We‟ve all it takes to win 2019 elections – Saraki tells supporters.” Daily Sun
10th December 2018. https://www.sunnewsonline.com/weve-all-it-takes-to-win-2019-
elections-saraki-tells-supporters/ Web.
Otubu, Akintunde “The Land Use Act and Land Administrationin 21st Century Nigeria: Need
for Reforms” Afe Babalola University: J. Of Sustainable Development Law & Policy 9.1
(2018)
80-108 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v9i1.5 Web
Sobowale, D. “Attah returns with new insights on resource control-1.” Vanguard 8th April
2018. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/04/attah-returns-new-insights-resource-
control-1/ Web.
Ushe, Moses U. Kpor of Tiv culture. Enugu: San Press, 2007. Print
Widdowson, H.G. (2007) Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print.
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and
Methodology”https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/34733557/24615_01_Wodak_Ch
_01.pdf?Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP 9/29/2008 1-13.15th August 2020. Web.

Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation in The Acquisition of Land in Nigeria's Farmers-Herders Crisis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation in The Acquisition of Land in Nigeria's Farmers-Herders Crisis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Between Bills and Laws: Dissenting Ideation of Acquisition of Land in Nigeria’s

in both documents with particular attention to the discrepancies reflected in the

the 2017 Benue State Open Grazing Prohibition Law.

ideational metafunction outlined in the Systemic-Functional Linguistic (SFL) Theory. In SFL,

communication. Communication is essential for meaningful inter/intra individual, group,

organisational or institutional interactions and realisable, with regards to language, when

an existing crisis in Nigeria.

However, in the process of making reference to events in the world, we consciously or

unconsciously reflect our interpretations of what is reported or represented; that is we paint

interpretation of experience is analogous to using language to construe experience as Halliday

process of using language as resource for construing experience could be bi-directional

because language doubles as resource for interpreting and expressing.

phrases, clauses, clause-complexes and paragraphs identifying acceptable and unacceptable

doctrinal Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) construct of language as a social semiotic

ideology of a culture or norm.

societal dialectics instigated by differences in economic and/or political classes. Martin

cannot be adequately addressed by solely analysing linguistic formations featured in texts or

power to control text productions and distribution.

In CDA, ideology is discussed more often as conceptual patterns informing discourse

https://dictionary.cambridge.org ; www.ideonomy.mit.edu ; and numerous others) one

accessing ideology through analyses of texts.

language to create/recreate communicative events; 2 “the discursive event” itself

To re-state in particulars, via aligning with Fairclough‟s “locations” of ideology, the

narrative process comprises events leading up to the drafting /presentation/signing of the

Further discussions in subsequent sections provide a synopsis of the contextual

of findings and the conclusion.

Contextual background: Nigeria’s laws, governance and multi-ethnicity

terms pre-colonial, colonial, post-colonial, neo-colonial and etc.

Pre-colonial Nigeria did not exist as a country; the geographical location, to be

encroachment by British Colonial administration resulted in the imposition of foreign laws,

enforcement powers and resources of the country‟s official governments” (Okereafoezeke,

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nigeria#cite_note-9); even Abuja Nigeria‟s

administrative and political headquarter, which was created to be a supposedly neutral

Natives commend Buhari for appointing Abuja indigene ambassador

a. NOTE: Three former governors of the South-South geo-political zone fought

Speaker, Commissioner and Local Government Council Chairman, as well as

on the negotiation for RESTRUCTURING. [Original emphasis] (Sobowale

The preceding is from an opinion column authored by a columnist, Dele Sobowale;

(https://www.neiti.gov.ng/index.php/revenue-allocation) put in place since 1999 wherein

Government on 2019 gubernatorial elections in the state:

b. Federal might will not determine outcome of Benue election – Ortom

them again.- Saraki (Olanrewaju n.p.)

as a predator with the alias federal might.

maintenance and/or revival. These authenticity drives or agitations between State

Figure 1: Pre-Colonial and Post-Colonial Traditional Socio

5th Class Rulers:

contents of Section 1(below) are perceived:

Nigerians in accordance with the provision of this Act.

ethnic groups in Nigeria.

implying recognition of these parties as owners of the land.

migration routes. Benue state lies at the intersection of international transhumance

herders in Nigeria practice a nomadic or semi-nomadic manner of pastoralism – often

of livelihood (Kwaja and Ademola-Adelehin 9-10)

Government; two contrasting positions articulated within the same space.

of NGRB consider the contents of BOGP as discriminatory and an infringement on the

constitutional rights of herdsmen who are predominantly Fulani.

Theoretical Background: ideational metafunction and the plane of ideology

For methodological convenience, Halliday and Matthiessen define “phenomenon” as a

A phenomenon is the most general experiential category-anything that can be

construed as part of human experience. The phenomena of experience are of

three orders of complexity: elementary (a single element), configurational

(configuration of elements, i.e. a figure) and complex (a complex of figures,

i.e. a sequence).... (48)