By David Onwuchekwa
Governor Charles Soludo’s decision to shut down Onitsha Main Market for one week is one of the most forceful steps yet taken by any South East Governor to end the lingering Monday sit-at-home culture.
It is a move that speaks loudly about state authority, but also raises serious questions about proportionality, empathy, and economic wisdom.
From a governance standpoint, the Governor acted within the bounds of his executive authority. The Anambra State Government had long abolished the sit-at-home order, issued repeated warnings, and clearly defined the consequences of non-compliance.
In that sense, the closure was neither sudden nor unlawful. By enforcing a previously announced sanction, the government reinforced its seriousness and avoided the credibility trap of issuing empty threats.
However, legality does not automatically translate to prudence.
Onitsha Main Market is not just another marketplace; it is a critical economic artery for Anambra State and the wider South East. A one-week closure inflicts heavy losses on thousands of traders, transporters, suppliers, and daily earners, many of whom stayed away from their shops not out of political defiance, but out of fear shaped by years of violence, threats, and uncertainty.
Punishing fear as though it were rebellion risks misreading the psychology of the people.
The sit-at-home phenomenon has never thrived on ideology alone; it has thrived on intimidation and weak confidence in state protection. While the Soludo administration insists, rightly, that security has improved, public confidence does not rebound at the same speed as official assurances.
Fear does not dissolve by proclamation, and it is unfair to pretend otherwise.
More troubling is the collective nature of the punishment. By sealing the entire market, the government punished the innocent alongside the non-compliant. A more targeted approach, engaging market leadership, sanctioning specific defiant sections, or coupling enforcement with visible, sustained security presence, might have achieved compliance without such severe economic collateral damage.
That said, the Governor’s action carries undeniable political symbolism. It signals that the era of enforced silence and economic paralysis must end. It challenges the narrative that the state is powerless in the face of non-state actors.
In the long run, this resolve may encourage other markets to reopen and weaken the grip of sit-at-home fear.
Yet, authority without empathy can harden resistance rather than heal it.
Our verdict is clear: Governor Soludo is right to insist that Mondays must return to full economic life in Anambra State. The sit-at-home order, in all its forms, has outlived any justification.
But the method adopted, mass economic punishment, was too heavy-handed for a problem rooted more in fear than defiance.
To permanently end sit-at-home, enforcement must walk hand in hand with reassurance: sustained security presence, confidence-building measures, engagement with traders, and visible protection for those who dare to open their shops.
