Benue State remains a critical flashpoint in Nigeria’s protracted farmer-herder conflicts. While both former Governor Samuel Ortom and incumbent Governor Hyacinth Alia inherited complex security crises, evidence suggests Ortom’s policies demonstrated greater efficacy, transparency, and political courage. This report contrasts their approaches, policies, and outcomes, revealing Ortom’s superior commitment to confronting insecurity despite political risks.
1. Security Philosophies: Confrontation vs. Ambiguity
- Ortom’s Uncompromising Stance: Ortom openly challenged federal authorities and pastoralist militias, framing insecurity as a battle for Benue’s territorial integrity. He accused the Buhari administration of "abating the menace" and publicly denounced killings, refusing to "defend the marauding killers". His transparency during attacks, including media coverage of mass burials built citizen trust despite criticism.
- Alia’s Opaque "Relative Peace" Narrative: Alia claims "relative peace" exists, downplaying persistent violence. His administration faces accusations of "concealing the truth about killings", particularly after declaring in Gwer East, a violence-affected LGA that attacks had ceased. Benue farmers condemns this as "gross insensitivity".
Operational Contrasts: Ortom's Policy Foundation vs. Alia's Superficial Adjustments
i. Legal Framework & Enforcement
Ortom established concrete legal architecture to combat insecurity, most notably the Open Grazing Prohibition Law (2017). This legislation provided a clear mandate for restricting herder movements and prosecuting violators. In stark contrast, Alia’s administration has relied entirely on Ortom’s existing law while making only marginal amendments to volunteer forces failing to introduce new legal instruments tailored to evolving threats.
ii. Security Force Structure & Autonomy
Where Ortom pioneered localized security solutions creating the Community Volunteer Guards for intelligence gathering and Livestock Guards for direct enforcement, Alia has merely rebranded existing structures. His renaming of Ortom’s guards as "Anyam Nyor" signifies administrative recycling rather than innovation. This underscores a critical divergence: Ortom built institutions; Alia renames them.
iii. Federal Engagement Strategy
Ortom adopted uncompromising public advocacy, directly challenging federal inaction and accusing the Buhari government of complicity, a high-risk stance that galvanized local support. Alia, however, leverages tacit support from Tinubu’s administration, avoiding public criticism of federal forces despite persistent security gaps. Ortom’s confrontational transparency contrasts sharply with Alia’s deference to Abuja.
iv. Crisis Transparency & Public Trust
Ortom prioritized real-time disclosure of attacks, using media coverage of mass burials to demand accountability, a policy that fostered citizen trust amid crisis. Alia’s administration faces widespread accusations of concealing casualties, including alleged suppression of mass burial reports. Where Ortom weaponized transparency, Alia obscures the scale of violence to project "relative peace."
Key Implications
This operational divergence reveals Ortom’s strategic assertiveness: proactive lawmaking, autonomous security structures, and fearless federal engagement. Alia’s approach, recycling old frameworks, avoiding federal friction, and downplaying threats, reflects reactive governance. The result is measurable: Ortom’s policies created enforceable mechanisms; Alia’s adjustments yield zero arrests despite federal backing. Benue’s security trajectory hinges on reversing this erosion of institutional courage.
2. Operational Effectiveness: Action vs. Stagnation
- Ortom’s Grassroots Mobilization: The Community Volunteer Guards trained and deployed across hotspots provided localized intelligence and rapid response capabilities. Ortom’s livestock guards enforced the grazing law, directly confronting violators.
- Alia’s Failed Security Surges: Despite distributing "300 motorcycles and Hilux vans" to security agencies, Alia admits: "not a single terrorist has been apprehended" after high-profile deployments. His Operation Anyam Nyor, a rebranded Ortom initiative has not produced measurable results.
Critical Failure: Alia’s claim that politicians "harbour and feed terrorists" lacks actionable follow-up, exposing intelligence-policy gaps. Ortom’s aides note that communities now "need permission from herders to access farms" a situation unthinkable under Ortom’s confrontational era.
3. Humanitarian Impact: Ortom’s IDP Advocacy vs. Alia’s Premature Returns
- Ortom’s IDP Protection: Ortom prioritized IDP safety over optics, maintaining camps amid violence. His administration acknowledged 4 million displaced persons, attracting humanitarian aid.
- Alia’s Forced Normalization: Alia boasts of reducing IDPs to "under 1 million" and reopening markets in Guma. However, these "returns" occur amid ongoing attacks in Agatu, Apa, Otukpo, Gwer West, and Logo. Survivors report coercion to leave camps for political photo ops while insecurity persists.
4. Political Leadership: Courage vs. Evasion
- Ortom’s Risk-Taking: Survived an assassination attempt in 2021 and defied federal pressure to revoke the grazing ban. His alignment with Benue’s farmers was unequivocal.
- Alia’s Blame-Shifting: Alia consistently blames Ortom for "inheriting a fragile security situation", yet Ortom inherited equally severe crises from predecessors. Alia’s allies now accuse Ortom of "envy", a diversion from security failures.
Stakeholder Testimony (Gwer East Resident, June 2025): "Under Ortom, we buried our dead with tears but dignity. Now, we bury in silence while the governor calls this peace."
5. Conclusion: The Verdict on Leadership
Samuel Ortom’s tenure, though imperfect, embodied three pillars Alia neglects:
- Transparency: Acknowledged attacks to mobilize response.
- Accountability: Used laws and local forces to enforce state sovereignty.
- Political Courage: Risked federal backlash to protect Benue’s farmers.
Alia’s "relative peace" narrative obscures continued violence, while operational inertia zero arrests despite federal support proves his approach ineffective. Ortom’s legacy remains superior because he challenged aggressors openly, while Alia obscures threats to appease Fulani oligarchies, and accused his own people. Until Alia matches Ortom’s courage, Benue’s security will further deteriorate.
The difference is simple: Ortom stood with Benue’s living; Alia stands with power, and Fulani oligarchies.
