The relationship between anti-grazing law enforcement and armed violence remains a critical concern in conflict governance in Benue State, Nigeria. This study examined the association between enforcement practices and perceived escalation of armed attacks, as well as the relationship between perceived reductions in open grazing and improvements in security. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey yielded 382 valid responses from Guma, Logo, Katsina-Ala and Ukum Local Government Areas. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Goodman–Kruskal Gamma at a 5% significance level. Perceived biased or politicised enforcement was positively associated with perceived escalation of armed attacks (γ = 0.319, p < .001). In the reported bivariate analyses, incomplete enforcement across local government areas, insufficient government presence and perceived adequacy of Livestock Guard training were not statistically significant. Although respondents perceived that the law had reduced open grazing, perceived reduction in open grazing was negatively associated with perceived reduction in attacks (γ = −0.134, p = .033). Conversely, the belief that full enforcement would reduce violence was positively associated with perceived attack reduction (γ = 0.320, p < .001). These findings highlight the analytical distinction between regulatory compliance and security outcomes and underscore the relevance of perceived enforcement impartiality to conflict governance. However, the cross-sectional, perception-based design limits causal inference and does not establish changes in independently verified incident counts. The study recommends transparent enforcement procedures, independent monitoring of security outcomes and inclusive mechanisms for resolving farmer–herder disputes.