The ongoing standoff between the Anambra State Government and traders at the Onitsha Main Market provides yet another troubling context for the persistent violation of human rights and the shrinking of civic space in Nigeria’s Southeast.
There is no dispute that the weekly “sit-at-home” has had a severe and damaging impact on the economy of the Southeast.
Traders, artisans, transporters, and workers are among its primary victims. Indeed, traders themselves acutely feel the economic losses associated with the shutdown of markets every Monday. However, it is dishonest and unjust to ignore the critical factor driving compliance: fear.
This fear is legitimate. When traders defy sit-at-home orders issued by separatist agitators and enforced by criminal elements, they are often attacked, intimidated, or killed. Over the years, security agencies have failed to provide consistent and effective protection to citizens who choose to go about their lawful businesses on sit-at-home days. In this context, compliance is not an exercise of free will but a survival strategy.
Blaming and punishing traders for staying away from their shops under such circumstances amounts to subjecting them to double jeopardy.
First, they suffer the consequences of insecurity and the economic hardship it brings. Second, they are punished by the state for actions compelled by fear arising from the state’s failure to fulfill its most basic constitutional duty: the protection of lives and property. The state cannot lawfully or morally punish victims for the consequences of its own failure.
The decision to seal the Onitsha Main Market and threaten prolonged closure or demolition is therefore a grossly disproportionate and punitive response. It criminalises vulnerability instead of addressing the root causes of the problem—persistent insecurity, weak intelligence-led policing, and the absence of public confidence in the state’s ability to protect law-abiding citizens.
Equally troubling is the posture of the police authorities in issuing warnings against protests. Peaceful protest is a legitimate and constitutionally protected means of expression and civic participation. It falls squarely within the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The police have no power to ban protests or to require citizens to seek permission before exercising their democratic rights. Their duty is to provide security for peaceful assemblies, not to suppress them.
Governor Chukwuma Soludo may well be motivated by a desire to restore economic activity and public order in Anambra State. However, good intentions do not excuse rights-violating methods. The enforcement of order must be guided by a human rights-based approach. Resorting to coercion, intimidation, and collective punishment of traders risks portraying the government as a bully rather than a partner of the people.
What is required is engagement, not escalation. The Anambra State Government should meaningfully engage with traders’ unions, market leaders, civil society organisations, and security agencies to jointly develop a credible, confidence-building strategy to address the menace of sit-at-home in a sustainable way. Such a strategy must prioritise effective security, community trust, dialogue, and accountability.
Until citizens are genuinely protected from reprisals by violent non-state actors, attempts to force compliance through punishment will only deepen resentment, exacerbate fear, and further shrink civic and economic space in the Southeast.
A democratic government must never punish people for being afraid when it has failed to make them safe.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is Executive Director of Rule of Law, Accountability Advocacy Center, RULAAC.
