26/01/2026
The Nation's Eyes
Why Traders Have a Constitutional Right to Choose When to Open — A Legal Response to Soludo’s Market Closure
By Noel Chiagorom
In a democratic society, the relationship between the state and private citizens must be grounded in law, not coercion. The recent directive by Governor Chukwuma Soludo closing the Onitsha Main Market — one of West Africa’s largest commercial hubs — after traders continued to observe the Monday sit-at-home order has generated widespread debate on governance, rights, and economic freedom.
According to the state government’s order, the Main Market was sealed for one week and could be closed for up to a month if traders refuse to open on Mondays. Officials stated that such measures are necessary to “restore law, order and economic sanity.” Yet, this raises serious constitutional and legal concerns about individual rights and the limits of executive authority.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY
Under Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), every Nigerian citizen has the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in the country. Any compulsory restriction, takeover, or interference with private property must be done through due process of law and just compensation where applicable, as protected under Section 44. Closing a trader’s shop or commercial premises because a group of people decide not to open on a particular day — even for political or social reasons — does not meet these constitutional thresholds. Such action conveys punishment without statutory backing or judicial oversight.
Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees freedom of labour and economic activity. Traders, like all citizens, have the right to participate in lawful economic activity without undue interference, so long as they meet legal obligations such as tax and statutory levies. A government directive that effectively forces a private business owner to trade on specific days, under threat of closure, encroaches on these fundamental rights.
RIGHT TO CHOOSE ONE'S ECONOMIC CALENDAR
A private business owner’s decision to open or close a shop on any given day — whether for religious preferences, personal decisions, economic strategy, or protest — is an exercise of individual economic autonomy. The government may regulate business activities through licensing, zoning, taxation, and public safety laws, but it cannot dictate traders’ work schedules outside clearly defined legal frameworks. The Anambra State Constitution (as part of the Federal Constitution) does not contain any clause empowering the executive to force a trader to open their shop against their will.
If Anambra State believes market operations should follow specific days or hours, that must first be grounded in law passed by the Anambra State House of Assembly, with adequate public consultation, and not through an executive directive alone.
EXECUTIVE POWER vs. DEMOCRATIC CONSENT
Democracy — as enshrined in Section 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution — places sovereignty in the hands of the people: “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority.” This means that while the government exercises regulatory authority, it must not override the will and welfare of the people it serves. When a majority of traders and citizens oppose a policy, the government must engage through dialogue, negotiation, and lawmaking processes, not by executive decree backed by threats.
The current situation in Anambra is not merely about economics; it is about the rule of law, respect for constitutional rights, and the proper role of government in a democratic polity.
LEGAL REDRESS AND THE COURTS
Traders whose livelihoods have been disrupted by what is effectively an arbitrary government closure of markets have legal avenues available. The judiciary exists to check executive excesses and to uphold constitutional rights. A lawsuit alleging unlawful deprivation of property and economic liberty could be brought before the Federal High Court or the State High Court. Remedies in such cases could include declarations of rights infringement, injunctions against further arbitrary closure, and claims for damages, especially where losses are measurable in the billions of naira.
Demanding N1 billion in damages from the Anambra State government is not merely hyperbole; it is a legitimate assertion that economic rights are valuable and protectable under law. The value of such claims would naturally depend on documented losses, but the principle remains clear: state power must be limited by law.
CONCLUSION
Governance requires persuasion, consultation, and respect for rights — not force. The closure of markets cannot be justified by executive impatience or discomfort with voluntary economic boycotts. If Anambra State wishes to regulate market days or compel business activity, it must do so through laws passed by the legislature, after meaningful engagement with the people most affected.
Failure to do so undermines the very foundation of democratic governance. The people — the sovereign — must always come first.
✒️ By Noel Chiagorom — The Nation’s Eyes Newspaper
Seeing Beyond the Headlines, Telling the Truth Others Won’t.
