This case revolves around the sentencing of Dan Bello, a herdsman, by an Ondo State Magistrates Court for the destruction of farm produce valued at N50 million. Bello’s actions violated the Ondo State’s anti-open grazing law, specifically the Ondo State Livestock Rearing and Grazing Regulation Law, 2021. This law, enacted to regulate livestock activities and prevent conflicts between herders and farmers, prohibits open grazing in undesignated areas and mandates permits for legal grazing activities. Bello’s disregard for these legal provisions led to his prosecution and subsequent conviction.
The incident occurred on October 27, 2023, when Bello grazed his cattle on a farmland belonging to the National Palm Produce Association of Nigeria, situated along the Ago Panu–Ute road in Owo Local Government Area. The farmland, cultivated with young palm trees and watermelons, suffered extensive damage due to the uncontrolled grazing. The association, representing palm produce farmers, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of Ondo State, contributing significantly to the production and trade of palm oil and related products. The damage inflicted by Bello’s actions represented a significant economic loss to the association and highlighted the potential for conflict between herders and farmers when grazing regulations are disregarded.
Bello faced a five-count charge, each count representing a distinct aspect of his offense. The charges included conspiracy, indicating a potential collaboration with others in the illegal activity, though details of any accomplices were not revealed in the provided text. He was also charged with unlawful grazing, directly addressing his violation of the anti-open grazing law. The charge of malicious damage captured the intentional destruction of the farm produce. Additionally, he was charged with breach of peace, reflecting the disruption and potential for conflict caused by his actions within the community. Finally, the charge of illegal entry highlighted his unauthorized presence on the farmland. The prosecution, led by P.O Nwafor, successfully presented evidence demonstrating Bello’s guilt on all counts, emphasizing the severity of his actions and the need for legal redress.
Magistrate Damilola Sekoni, presiding over the case, meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution. Finding the evidence credible and sufficient, Magistrate Sekoni delivered a carefully structured sentence designed to address the various facets of Bello’s offense. For the count of conspiracy, Bello received a four-year prison sentence without the option of a fine, emphasizing the seriousness of engaging in planned illegal activities. A two-year sentence with an option of a N50,000 fine was imposed for the unlawful grazing charge, offering a potential path to avoid imprisonment if the fine was paid. The counts of malicious damage and breach of peace each carried a one-year sentence, contributing to the overall duration of the punishment while acknowledging the distinct nature of each offense.
The fifth count, illegal entry, resulted in a two-year sentence without the option of a fine, further reflecting the court’s recognition of the importance of respecting property rights. The court stipulated that the sentences would run concurrently, meaning that Bello would serve a maximum of four years in prison, the longest sentence imposed for the conspiracy charge. While the cumulative sentence for all counts amounted to ten years, the concurrent nature of the sentences meant he would not serve the full ten years consecutively. This approach allows for a balanced punishment that acknowledges the gravity of each individual charge while ensuring a reasonable overall sentence.
In a provision offering a potential reprieve, the court ruled that Bello could be discharged if he paid N2 million in compensation to the National Palm Produce Association of Nigeria. This compensation, aimed at addressing the financial losses suffered by the association due to the destruction of their crops, provides an alternative path for Bello to avoid imprisonment. This provision demonstrates the court’s commitment not only to punishing the offender but also to providing a mechanism for restitution to the affected party. The option of compensation serves a dual purpose: it provides financial relief to the victims and offers an incentive for the offender to take responsibility for their actions and contribute to restoring the harm caused.
