Seven months after, the closure of Nigeria’s western borders has caused pain on both sides and taught many lessons. Those lessons are instructive about the nature of the relationship between Nigeria and her neighbours, the structure of the economies of West Africa and the gaping holes in the management of our systems. Nigeria should take the many lessons from the closure and open the border in line with our commitments in various treaties and agreements.
Customs boss Hameed Ali hammered further nails to the matter on October 14 when he declared that the closure of the land borders is now total and would be indefinite. Reopening it hinges on Nigeria agreeing with its neighbours on what can pass or not pass through our land borders.
The closure has had multiple ripple effects across West Africa. Prices of essentials such as rice, tomatoes, poultry and sugar have continued to climb, adding to expenses for consumers. Our neighbours are worried. Ghana’s minister of foreign affairs and regional integration Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey lamented the financial losses Ghana suffered from the closure. She said West African nations would use diplomacy to bring about the re-opening of the borders. Soon after she spoke, Kasapreko Limited, the manufacturer of the popular Alomo beverage from Ghana, said it was losing $1million monthly to the closure.
Nigerian firms and consumers also feel pain. Many firms send goods to the West African region through our land borders but cannot do so now. Trade and interaction across our borders went beyond smuggling; the closure has put a temporary halt to all the positives. The lessons have been profound.
Many of Nigeria’s neighbours were officially complicit in the illegalities perpetrated by traders at our borders. They allowed it for so long as it brought in revenues to them and none to Nigeria. Benin Republic, with a population less than half of Lagos state, imported more rice than 40 African countries combined. The importers paid duties there while the country looked the other way as they evaded the same and smuggled the goods into Nigeria. Benin, Togo, Cameroon and Niger are all into the business of transhipment and smuggling of rice, vehicles, and sundries into Nigeria and have even made it part of their annual budgets and economic plans.
On their part, Nigerian businesses thwarted the intentions of the rice policy aimed at increasing production internally. The government provided funding for owners of existing rice mills and new investors with proof of backward integration plans. The subsidy allowed such organisations to import rice at 10 percent duty and 20 percent levy, totalling 30 percent, while merchants who only import would pay 70 percent (10 percent duty and 60 percent levy). It played out differently.
Despite their gains from the Nigerian market, countries such as Ghana continue to play a lousy card against Nigerians in their country. Ghanaian legislation aimed at Nigerian entrepreneurs requires a minimum deposit of $200,000 to start a business in the country. Ghanaians have been trying to push out Nigerian small-scale entrepreneurs. Ghana’s trade unions have now called for a boycott of Nigerian made goods.
Closure of the border cannot be indefinite nor go on for two years as happened in Buhari 1.0 in the 1980s. Nigeria is a signatory to the ECOWAS protocol and to the new African Continental Free Trade Area all of which stipulate open borders. We should apply the lessons learned to tighten and implement procedures at all entry points, but ensure continued trading with our neighbours.
