Amidst controversy surrounding whether Ruga settlements should be established in all states of the federation or not, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Abia state chapter, Dr Chamberline Adiaso, has said those kicking against Ruga settlement in the South-east are haters of democracy.
The chieftain said the Ruga settlement plan was designed by the federal government to check the activities of Fulani herdsmen and as well as curb the rising cases of farmers/ herders incessant clashes.
Dr Adiaso, who is the president of Friends of Buhari in Diaspora, said this in Umuahia Wednesday, while lambasting those kicking against Ruga settlement in the South-east.
He maintained that Ruga initiative has been in existence for long and that Umuahia, the state capital where he hails from, always had a mini Ruga settlement as well as the one at Lokpanta in Umunneochi local government area of the state where neighbours within and outside usually come to purchase cows.
According to him, most of the cows purchased in these places are owned by business men of South-east extraction.
Further, he said his group condemns in its entirety the recent invasion of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja by the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, known as Shiites.
It could be recalled that Shiites members had staged protests at the FCT in protest against further detention of their detained leader, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky with attendant casualties including the murder of a Deputy Commissioner of Police, and a youth corps member, among many others.
The president said the FCT being cosmopolitan city and the seat of power should not be subjected to bloody and violent protests, saying would have adverse consequences.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain who doubles as the chairman Presidential Support Committee South-east commended President Muhammadu Buhari for what he described as his ability to exercise restraint in the face of extreme provocation by the IMN.
He cautioned the Islamic sect not to mistake the president’s calm disposition for weakness, adding that their actions were akin to overstepping the boundaries ordinarily not acceptable within the confines of the constitution in the guise of religious freedom.
