Security agencies on Tuesday barricaded the Onitsha Main Market in Anambra State to enforce a one-week closure ordered by Governor Chukwuma Soludo following traders’ defiance of the government’s Monday sit-at-home directive.
From the early hours of Tuesday, hundreds of security personnel were deployed across the market area, with Armoured Personnel Carriers and Hilux patrol vans blocking major access points and strategic locations within and around the sprawling commercial hub. The heavy security presence effectively prevented traders, buyers, and other members of the public from accessing the market premises.
The closure followed Governor Soludo’s on-the-spot inspection of the market on Monday, during which he expressed displeasure that traders and market leaders refused to open for business despite repeated appeals by the state government to resume normal economic activities. The governor subsequently ordered the immediate closure of the market, warning that the sanction could be extended if compliance was not achieved.
Soludo described the situation as part of a prolonged struggle to restore economic life in the South-East, noting that the persistent sit-at-home order has had devastating economic consequences. According to the state government, Anambra State loses an estimated N8 billion weekly due to the sit-at-home, while the South-East region reportedly loses about N19.6 billion, alongside disruptions to work, commerce, and daily life.
“The government cannot stand by while a few individuals undermine public safety and disregard official directives. This is plain economic sabotage,” Soludo said, adding that the closure was a protective measure for law-abiding citizens.
During the enforcement, security operatives, including police, army, and other joint task forces, maintained tight control of the area. Traders who came to the market were seen loitering nearby, engaging in discussions and observing the unfolding situation. At intervals, the atmosphere became tense, with brief moments of chaos as traders moved hurriedly while security personnel enforced order.
The development also comes amid a counter-directive from the Indigenous People of Biafra, which reportedly urged traders to defy the closure and resume trading, describing the governor’s action as unacceptable.
Security agencies are just following orders. Is enforcing market closure the right approach? What about the economic impact?
I believe enforcing the closure of the market is an infringement on peoples rights. Let them decide to open or not.
Why are security agencies targeting markets instead of addressing the root cause of the sit-at-home defiance? Seems like a misplaced strategy.
This is a clear violation of citizens rights! Security agencies should focus on protecting, not restricting, peoples livelihoods.
Why should security agencies shut down a market because of a sit-at-home order? Isnt that an overreach of power?
This is a clear violation of peoples rights! Enforcing market closure for a sit-at-home protest is unjustifiable. Where is democracy in this?
Why are security agencies closing markets instead of addressing the root cause of sit-at-home protests? Is this really the solution?
Is shutting down a market the right response to a sit-at-home protest? Lets discuss the implications of this decision.
This is a clear violation of the peoples right to freedom of movement. Security agencies need to respect citizens rights.
Do security agencies have the right to enforce market closures? Isnt this a violation of peoples rights? Discuss.
This heavy-handed approach only escalates tensions. Shouldnt security agencies focus on dialogue and community engagement instead?
Why are security agencies shutting down markets? Is this really the best way to address civil disobence? Seems extreme.
Do security agencies have the right to enforce market closures for sit-at-home defiance? Lets discuss the implications.
This heavy-handed approach is only fueling tensions. There must be a better way to address the sit-at-home defiance.
This is a blatant violation of peoples rights! Security agencies should focus on protecting, not enforcing closures. Wheres the balance?
I believe enforcing market closure for sit-at-home defiance sets a dangerous precedent. Is this the right approach? Lets discuss.