Between Authority & Rights: The Law Behind Anambra’s Market Closure
Background: A One-Week Shutdown and a Legal Debate
THE decision by Anambra State Governor, Chukwuma Charles Soludo, to shut down the Onitsha Main Market for one week has reignited a long-running national debate over the limits of executive power in Nigeria’s federal system. The closure followed continued observance of Monday sit-at-home actions by traders, a practice that emerged after the arrest of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The governor’s directive was framed as an attempt to restore economic activity and challenge what the state government views as an unlawful disruption of commercial life. His message was unambiguous: traders must return to their shops on Mondays.
However, beyond the political messaging lies a deeper constitutional question—can a governor lawfully compel citizens to open their businesses on specific days, and can non-compliance justify the shutdown of an entire commercial hub?
Constitutional Rights and Commercial Freedom
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees a range of fundamental rights relevant to this situation. Among them are the rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and the right to engage in lawful economic activity.
Legal scholars note that while the Constitution does not explicitly mention the “right to trade,” it protects the liberty of citizens to choose how and when to pursue lawful livelihoods. There is no statutory provision requiring a trader to open their shop on a particular day, nor does Nigerian law criminalise voluntary business closure due to fear, protest, religious observance, or personal choice.
In this context, choosing not to trade on Mondays—even if widespread—does not automatically constitute an offence unless a competent court has declared such conduct illegal.
Executive Powers and Their Limits
Governors, as chief security officers of their states, possess broad powers to maintain law and order. These include deploying security agencies, imposing curfews during emergencies, and restricting movement where public safety is under serious threat.
However, constitutional lawyers consistently stress that executive authority is not absolute. Any restriction on rights must meet three core legal standards: legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Closing an entire market because traders stayed away voluntarily raises concerns under these principles. Critics argue that the action resembles collective punishment rather than targeted law enforcement, particularly where no judicial pronouncement has criminalised the traders’ conduct.
Collective Punishment or Lawful Regulation?
One of the central legal issues is whether shutting down Onitsha Main Market amounts to collective punishment. Under Nigerian law, sanctions are generally imposed on individuals found guilty of specific offences after due process.
By penalising all traders—including those willing to operate—because others stayed away, the government risks acting outside established legal norms. Courts have repeatedly frowned upon policies that punish entire communities for actions not individually proven or judicially sanctioned.
Security Enforcement Versus Economic Sanctions
If traders are being intimidated or coerced into observing sit-at-home orders, the lawful response, experts argue, is increased security presence and the arrest of those enforcing illegal restrictions—not the closure of markets.
Many traders are already victims of economic losses linked to insecurity. Shutting markets further compounds their hardship and may undermine public confidence in the state’s commitment to economic recovery.
Democracy, Authority and the Rule of Law
At the heart of the controversy lies a broader democratic principle: authority must operate within the confines of law. Governors may persuade, encourage, and protect, but compelling economic participation through punitive measures without judicial backing sits on shaky constitutional ground.
As Nigeria continues to grapple with insecurity and civil dissent, the balance between restoring order and protecting rights remains delicate. How governments navigate this balance will shape public trust in democratic governance.
