Tension Rises as Anambra Government Insists On Monday Opening of Onitsha Main Market

The Anambra State Government’s insistence that traders at the Onitsha Main Market must resume business activities on Mondays has triggered renewed controversy, exposing deep political, economic, and security fault lines within the state and the wider South-East region.

The directive, which reaffirmed that the Onitsha Main Market is state-owned property and must operate fully on Mondays, has drawn mixed reactions from traders, political commentators, and concerned citizens. While government officials argue that the continued closure of markets amounts to economic sabotage, critics insist that the policy ignores the underlying causes of the long-running sit-at-home practice.

Supporters of the government’s position argue that no authority can allow a major commercial hub to remain shut indefinitely under pressure from non-state actors. Some commentators insist that traders who refuse to open their shops should either comply with the law or relocate to states where such practices are tolerated.

“As long as other parts of Anambra are not observing sit-at-home, Main Market traders must open their shops or leave,” one commentator argued, describing the Monday shutdown as a self-inflicted wound that hurts the region’s economy more than it helps any political cause.

Others went further, applauding Governor Chukwuma Soludo’s stance and framing the issue as a test of state authority. In their view, enforcing Monday trading is necessary to reassert government control, protect lawful commerce, and prevent criminal groups from dictating economic life.

However, critics strongly disagree, warning that coercion without addressing root causes could worsen tensions. Several voices insist that while the state may own the physical market infrastructure, it does not own the private businesses operating within it.

“Yes, the government owns the market, but it does not own the businesses,” one commentator noted. “You cannot force people to open shops if they feel unsafe or unconvinced that their concerns are being addressed.”

Some traders and analysts argue that civil disobedience remains a legitimate form of protest, particularly when citizens feel trapped between state directives and fear of violent reprisals. They suggest that rather than issuing threats of arrests or permanent exclusion from the market, the government should seek judicial clarification or open structured dialogue with stakeholders.

Comparisons have also been drawn with developments in the United States, where state authorities in some cases have resisted federal overreach by siding with local populations affected by enforcement actions. Critics ask why South-East governors cannot collectively engage the federal government to address the political and security issues that gave rise to sit-at-home actions in the first place.

At the heart of the debate lies the unresolved detention of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Many commenters argue that the continued incarceration of Kanu, while other agitators and armed groups across the country appear to receive preferential treatment or negotiations, has fuelled resentment and defiance in the region.

“This is why people feel angry and powerless,” one critic argued. “Igboho is free, bandits are negotiating peace deals, yet Kanu remains detained. People see injustice, and it reflects in economic resistance.”

Others counter this narrative, insisting that emotions cannot substitute for political strategy. They argue that the South-East currently lacks the leverage to force federal concessions and that antagonising the same authorities from whom relief is sought is counterproductive.

“You negotiate from a position of strength,” one response stated. “Insulting the people you want assistance from only weakens your case. Logic must prevail over emotion.”

The debate has also spilled into partisan territory, with some contributors framing the issue as a political contest between Governor Soludo and IPOB-aligned actors. Supporters of the governor portray the enforcement drive as a clear win for lawful governance, while critics accuse the administration of insensitivity and escalation.

Meanwhile, the role of national political figures has not escaped scrutiny. Some commenters questioned the silence of former Anambra governor and Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, urging him to take a clear position on the crisis in his home state. Others dismissed such expectations, arguing that Obi deliberately avoids polarising issues to maintain broad appeal.

Despite the heated exchanges, one point of consensus emerges: the continued closure of Onitsha Main Market on Mondays is unsustainable. The market is one of West Africa’s largest trading centres, and each lost trading day compounds economic hardship for traders, transporters, and the state’s internally generated revenue.

Observers warn that a purely force-driven approach could backfire, risking confrontation, legal battles, and deeper mistrust between citizens and the state. They urge a balanced strategy that combines security guarantees, political engagement, and economic incentives rather than threats alone.

As Anambra navigates this delicate standoff, many Nigerians are watching closely. The outcome will not only determine the future of Onitsha Main Market but may also set a precedent for how governments across the South-East address civil resistance, economic disruption, and the limits of state power in an already fragile national climate.