By Levinus Nwabughiogu – Abuja
Members of the House of Representatives were divided, Wednesday, over a motion seeking the reopening of the Idiroko border and others in the country.
It will be recalled that the Federal Government had in late 2019 closed the land borders over concerns of illegal exportation of petroleum products, illegal imports of food stocks and light arms.
While some said the closure had outlived its usefulness, others said it has helped to stem the tide of insecurity in the country.
Titled “Urgent Need to Re–open Idiroko Border and other Land Borders in Nigeria”, the motion moved by Hon. Kolawole Lawal and 10 other lawmakers had urged the Federal Government to re–open the Idiroko and other land borders to boost economic activities and revenue generation to the nation’s economy.
It also urged the Federal Government to invest in better border security and surveillance as well as strengthen human capacity at the borders to curb insecurity, smuggling and other crimes around the border communities.
Lawal while moving the motion said that with the closure of petrol stations around the Idiroko border, the economic activities in the town has crippled thus causing untold hardship to the people of the area.
“The border closure has profound repercussions on the landmark free trade agreement signed by 54 of Africa’s 55 Countries, an initiative hailed as a crucial step towards removing the continent’s trade barriers.
“Inhabitants of other border communities across the country have had it rough since the border closure and have had to take desperate measures to survive, thus exacerbating the insecurity situation of the country.
“If Idiroko and other closed land borders across the country are not urgently re–opened, the people will further suffer and, considering the growing agitation as a result of the closure, may resort to aggravated crimes to survive as the country continues to lose huge revenue”, he said.
Arguing in favor of the motion, one of the sponsors, Hon. Sada Soli from Katsina State said the border closure has been counter -productive.
ALSO READ:
He said: “One of the reason for closing the borders is arms smuggling, but has anything changed? The closure has encouraged extortion, corruption, extra-judicial killings. Anyone in doubt should visit there under cover to prove this.”
Similarly, Hon. Satomi Ahmed from Borno State suggested adequate security around the border instead of total closure.
He added that the closure has not made any noticeable impact as insecurity had even worded.
On his own, Hon. Isiaka Ibrahim said the government needed to change strategy.
“We have tested the closure, the government should know that it is not working, they need to change strategy,” he said.
Also contributing, Hon. Sergious Ogun from Edo State argued that the policy of the government has not worked to prevent smuggling, favoring the reopening of the land borders.
Speaking against the motion, Hon. Rotimi Agusoye from Lagos State wondered if the land borders were even closed at all.
He said: “The question is: are the borders closed? Closure at the borders should be tightened, so that we will live in harmony, stem the tide of insecurity, ensure food security.”
At this juncture, the speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila called his Deputy, Hon. Idris Wase for his opinion.
Speaking, Wase opined that border closure has reduced insecurity, illegal movement of light arms in the country, adding that it should remain closed.
In a similar stance, Gbajabiamila also called the Chairman, House Committee on Science and Technology, Hon. Beni Lar for her view.
Reacting, Lar said “I support the Deputy Speaker’s position. Border closure is the best thing for Nigeria. The local economy is growing, if we open the borders it will affect local turn overs. For now it should leave it closed”.
Having aggregated their views, Gbajabiamila put the matter to a voice vote which eventually received the “nays” and was rejected.
Before subjecting the matter to vote, the Speaker however asked the lawmakers to chose between security and free trade economy.
Disclaimer
Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.