THE IMPLICATIONS OF EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE ON TRADERS AT ONITSHA MAIN MARKET: A LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.

 THE IMPLICATIONS OF EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE ON TRADERS AT ONITSHA MAIN MARKET: A LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.

Earlier this week, Governor Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State ordered the closure and sealing of the Onitsha Main Market for one week after traders again kept their shops locked on Monday, observing what the government had declared an abolished sit-at-home directive. In carrying out this order, security operatives — including police, army personnel, and other agencies — physically blocked access to the market and enforced the shutdown, restricting movement and commerce in the heart of Nigeria’s Southeast commercial belt.

The decision was justified by the government as a response to perceived economic sabotage, with authorities arguing that prolonged sit-at-home practices had stifled commerce, costing the state and region billions of naira weekly. Yet the method of enforcement — especially the deployment of security forces to seal off a market and bar entry — raises urgent questions about the legal validity of such state action and its conformity with constitutional protections afforded to Nigerian citizens.

1. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON:

The Nigerian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. Citizens are entitled to move freely throughout the Federation and reside in any part thereof. Arbitrary restrictions on access to a bustling commercial space — enforced through security barricades and the physical sealing off of a marketplace — risk infringing these fundamental rights. Such restrictions must be tightly justified under the law and proportionate to any legitimate aim; sweeping closures enforced by military or police presence may not meet that threshold.

In the absence of any specific legislation empowering a governor to restrict access to a lawful public venue like a market, such use of force — even where claimed to be in pursuit of public order — can verge on arbitrary state action. That is particularly so where traders are not accused of any crime but merely make a personal decision rooted in fear of insecurity.

2. PROTECTION FROM ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT ACTION:

Article 35–44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) implicitly prohibits arbitrary interference with citizens’ rights unless such interference is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The paradigm of rule of law demands that government actions must be backed by express statutory authority. No existing law categorically empowers a governor to shut down an entire commercial hub simply because a cohort of traders elect not to open for business.

Security challenges and economic disruptions are cited by the government as justification, but the state’s obligation is to protect citizens’ lives and property — not to punish them for failing to overcome fear in an insecure environment. Forcing compliance through physical closure of the market shifts the burden onto traders themselves, effectively penalising victims of insecurity instead of redressing the root security problem. This risks producing a legal challenge on the grounds of excessive and punitive use of executive power.

3. THE RIGHT TO ECONOMIC LIBERTY AND RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING:

The Constitution and long-standing Nigerian jurisprudence protect economic rights — including the right to pursue a lawful occupation, trade, or business — as part of individual liberty. While not absolute, these rights may only be curtailed where clear and present danger exists that threatens public safety, and where alternatives less restrictive than market closure are unavailable.

Shutting down a marketplace effectively denies traders the ability to earn a livelihood, jeopardising their families’ welfare and disrupting the regional economy. Even well-intended regulatory measures must balance public interest against individual rights. A blanket closure enforced through security force presence could be viewed legally as manifestly disproportionate to the threat being averted, particularly where traders have not themselves engaged in criminal acts.

4. DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE SECURITY BEFORE ENFORCEMENT:

The government’s stated concern is that the continued observance of sit-at-home orders — linked to threats from non-state armed actors — undermines economic life. Yet by sealing the market with security forces, the state essentially uses the coercive apparatus of law enforcement to compel behaviour, even while acknowledging insecurity as the reason traders remain closed. This paradox undermines the state’s primary constitutional duty: to protect lives and property so citizens can freely exercise their rights.

Without demonstrable evidence of traders’ direct complicity in violent acts or economic sabotage, the use of force risks being construed as oppressive rather than protective — a strategy that more deeply erodes trust in governance and promotes civil unrest.

5. POTENTIAL LEGAL CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES:

Traders, market unions, civil society, and human rights organisations may pursue legal recourse through the courts — challenging the closure as unconstitutional, seeking injunctive relief, or claiming damages for losses suffered. The judiciary, as guardian of the Constitution, could examine whether:

* The governor had statutory authority for the closure.

* The actions were necessary and proportionate to any legitimate public order objective.

* Fundamental rights — including freedom of movement, right to dignity of the human person, and economic liberty — were unjustifiably infringed.

Historically, Nigerian courts have held that executive actions must conform strictly to the Constitution and enabling statutes, especially where fundamental rights are at stake. If the closure is found to lack legal basis, the state could be compelled to reopen the market immediately and compensate aggrieved traders.

CONCLUSION:

The sealing of the Onitsha Main Market by Governor Soludo, enforced through the visible deployment of security forces, represents a flashpoint in the balance between state power and individual rights. While the state has legitimate interests in maintaining public order and protecting economic activities, these interests cannot be pursued at the expense of constitutional freedoms.

Excessive use of force against traders — particularly when they are not demonstrably culpable of wrongdoing but are acting out of fear for their safety — carries profound legal implications. Any executive order must be grounded in law, proportionate in effect, and mindful of constitutional guarantees. Failing that, such actions risk spawning legal challenges, deepening mistrust in governance, and setting dangerous precedents for executive overreach in Nigeria’s democratic order.

@Nigeria News Channel