Onitsha Market Closure: Need For Restraint

In a bid to forcefully end the sit-at-home order on Mondays in Anambra State, Governor Charles Chukwuma Soludo recently wielded the big stick by forcefully shutting the Onitsha Main Market for one week. He accused traders of economic sabotage and warned of longer closures should they persist in keeping their shops shut on Mondays.

The sit-at-home protest has endured for years across the South East. It was first declared on August 9, 2021, by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to protest the detention of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, following his arrest in June 2021.

Although described as a passive protest, it has often been enforced violently. Over time, traders, corporate organisations and even government institutions stopped operating on Mondays out of fear of attacks by gunmen and criminals operating under the outlawed Eastern Security Network (ESN), IPOB’s militant wing.

However, with the incarceration of Kanu and Simon Ekpa — the Finland-based agitator whose incendiary broadcasts fuelled violence in the region — state governments and prominent individuals have intensified calls for an end to the protest, arguing that it amounts to self-inflicted economic harm.

State governments have attempted to enforce normal activity by threatening sanctions against public servants who fail to report for duty on Mondays. While this has yielded some success in the public sector, it has had little effect on private enterprises and corporate bodies, particularly banks, which remain apprehensive about security risks.

It was, perhaps, frustration over the continued closure of businesses in Onitsha Main Market — the largest commercial hub in the South East — that drove Governor Soludo to order the week-long shutdown, ostensibly to compel traders to resume operations on Mondays.

While the state government has regulatory authority over markets and may close them for legitimate reasons, Soludo’s action raises serious legal, economic and security concerns. The decision appears to infringe on several fundamental rights guaranteed to traders and business owners.

The traders’ non-violent refusal to open on Mondays constitutes an exercise of their right to freedom of expression under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), in protest against Kanu’s continued detention.

Section 41 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. By preventing buyers and sellers from accessing the market for an extended period, the government may be in breach of this provision. Similarly, Section 43 guarantees the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property. Denying traders access to their shops effectively shuts down their businesses and deprives them of the use of their property.

There is also the issue of the right to private and family life under Section 37, and potentially the right to life under Section 33. Traders who feel unsafe due to threats from criminal elements enforcing the sit-at-home order may see the government’s directive as exposing them to danger by compelling them to open for business.

While IPOB’s activities are neither supported nor condoned, the governor’s approach appears heavy-handed and raises questions about abuse of power. By what legal authority can a government dictate when a private citizen must open or close a lawful business?

Affected traders have the option of seeking redress in court under Section 46 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, all of which are entrenched in Chapter IV of the Constitution.

Despite public backlash following the market closure, the governor has remained defiant, threatening to revoke traders’ land titles and rebuild the market. Although the Land Use Act empowers a governor to acquire land in the public interest, such a move risks escalating tensions into a full-blown crisis. The state government has already claimed that the sit-at-home protest costs Anambra about N8 billion daily.

Prolonged market closures or land revocations would only compound losses for both the traders and the state government.

There is also the danger of unsettling the fragile calm that has recently returned to the state and the wider region. IPOB and ESN have not been dismantled, and strong-arm tactics could provoke a resurgence of unrest. Indeed, IPOB has already threatened fresh protests in response to the governor’s stance.

This is, therefore, a moment that calls for restraint and dialogue. Governor Soludo should remain committed to diplomacy by continuing to engage with trade unions, addressing their fears and security concerns, and persuading them through consensus rather than coercion. A forceful approach risks aggravating the situation and producing unintended consequences.