Border closure: Economic instrument of national policy

Sometimes in August 2019, the Africa nations’ “big brother”, Nigeria, shut down her land borders especially with the western Benin and Niger Republics. The immediate repercussions of this unusual step is that the ban on movement of goods imported through land borders has pushed up food prices locally and pummeled those neighboring countries economy. But the remote outcome is anticipated to be to the benefits of, especially Nigeria farmers and of course the people as they will find enough reason to begin to consume their locally made food produce. Hear the Nigeria Custom boss, “”All goods, for now, are banned from being exported or imported through our land borders and that is to ensure that we have total control over what comes in,” said Hameed Ali, comptroller-general of the Nigerian Customs Service.

Taking cognisance of the fact that Nigeria is running an import based economy and as such heavily relies on that to carter for the feeding of her burgeoning population of some 190 million, it is believed in some quarters that maybe this policy may be a welcome development, at least in the long run, as it serves a huge incentive to the indigenous farmers and the government seeking to bolster domestic agriculture in a bid to diversify the monotonous oil-dependent economy.

I intend to analyze the subject and weigh it in the balance as it also touches some international bileteral agreements which Nigeria is a signatory to. Again, let’s consider the local contents of the now publicly unfavoured policy.

The commerical and freedom of movement treaties signed under the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is not consistent with any unilateral closure of borders as now enforced by Nigeria government. The historic free-trade agreement which was recently signed by 54 out of 55 African countries and which reached a major operational threshold in July, is largely undermined by this indefinite closure of Nigeria land borders. In the light of my present subject title, let us see how we deliberate on economic instruments as economic weapons but differentiating betwixt the two ideas. Constantly, economic instruments are used in the furtherance of a country’s national policy. Raising the standard of living, promotion of foreign sales, expanding employment, conserving natural resources, improving health and advancing technology are among the chief objectives which any nations is disposed to pursue especially during times of peace. Economic Instruments which is basically nonviolent in nature (different from economic weapons;) they represent administration of a state’s economic policy in an effort to promote the national interest. On the other side of the coin, during any full-scale war, the following economic weapons are the chief targets, including; harbors, factories, railways, warehouses, dams, supplies power installations, ships and their ilks.

Either for good purposes or bad ones may be served by the implementation of economic instruments; they may be used to ensure desparately needed markets or to mitigate widespread unemployment or, on the other hand, they may be utilized to set up foreign control or, better still, to expand the power of an aggressor. Much as majority may rail against “nationalistic” economic policies, it is quite difficult to distinguish between what a state ought to do in legitimate advancement of its national interest and what, in the interest of a healthy and robust international economy such as a regime of “live and let live,” it must abstain from doing. Obviously, the issues are highly controversial as well as intuitive.

However, even as we’re ruffling one another’s feathers over the eligibility of the now controversial policy in Nigeria, a certain member of the House of Representative representing Daura/Mai’adua/Sandamu Constituency, Katsina State, Fatuhu Muhammed, has opened the can of worms, revealing how massive smuggling is still taking place in Daura, the hometown of Nigeria President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, despite the loud noise about the closure of Nigeria’s land border by the Federal Government. The thing seems to be partially carried out. This strategic revelation, the follow up of which I’m not aware of how diligent that’s being done, may have actually demostrated the sincerity of the honorable member but with the negligence of a conclusive actions by the house leadership on the matter, everyone can now see the kid gloves with which the Nigeria government is handling the combat against corruption. Nigeria can adopt economic policies tailored towards the promotion of her domestic welfare without having any intention to spite either her component region or injure another state, whatsoever. A protective tariff may be levied to encourage home manufacturers who are striving under severe taxation, and adulterated goods may be forbidden so to protect public health.

To bring this to an end, it is imperative to secure some basic economic amenities, such as the provision of a stable electricity, in a state prior beating the drum of prohibition list of imported items or similarly attempting to close the frontiers of our existence with other states, to avoid a man-made creation of a harsh economic realities for the people. Any national policy that does not factor, ab initio, the primary interest and the ultimate welfare of the entirety of the people is unwholesome and anachronistic. The diligence, research and focus that’s required in the formulation of people-oriented policies; efforts and resources should be marshalled and devoted in achieving this national assignment. Glad to know that this is a feasible thing to do, both as individual citizens and a corporate body of the state.

Orajiaku, a freelance journalist and social activist, writes via

[email protected]

  + 2348187885533

Leave a Reply