By Tony Okafor
The ongoing tension surrounding the proposed remodeling and control of the Onitsha Main Market calls for caution, restraint, and deeper reflection by the Anambra State Government.
The market is not just a cluster of shops and stalls; it is a historic economic hub, a source of livelihood for tens of thousands of families, and a symbol of indigenous enterprise that has survived decades of policy missteps, insecurity, and neglect.
Governor Chukwuma Soludo’s intention to modernize markets across the state may be well-meaning, but the approach being taken toward Onitsha Main Market risks creating more problems than it solves.
One cannot easily understand the nexus between the recent efforts to end the sit-at-home cankerworm and the sudden, aggressive interest in remodeling this ancient market.
After years of disruption and economic trauma, traders are only beginning to regain stability. Introducing another major upheaval at this delicate moment appears ill-timed and insensitive.
Rebuilding or remodeling the Onitsha Main Market will come at a huge financial cost, one that the state can ill afford at this time.
Beyond the monetary burden, such an exercise will inevitably bring severe hardship to traders, disrupt commerce, and open the door to social tension, dislocation, and increased criminal activities during the transition period.
Experience has shown that forced relocation or restructuring of large markets rarely ends well. Traders lose income, prices of goods rise, and informal arrangements often give way to extortion and insecurity.
Onitsha Main Market, with its dense population and complex trading networks, would be especially vulnerable to such chaos.
Modernization should also not be reduced to the notion that every market must look like a luxury shopping complex. All markets need not be remodeled to resemble The Dubai Mall.
Indigenous markets have their own character, rhythm, and economic logic. What they require is functional infrastructure, safety, sanitation, and order—not a wholesale transformation that erases history and displaces livelihoods.
A more sensible alternative exists. If the government truly seeks modernization, it should build a brand-new main market in a carefully chosen location, equipped with modern infrastructure, security, parking, and proper layout.
If such a market is genuinely better managed and more attractive, traders will migrate there naturally, without coercion or conflict. Market forces, not forceful policies, should determine where commerce thrives.
The insistence on tampering with the existing Onitsha Main Market raises legitimate questions. Why disrupt a functioning economic ecosystem when expansion elsewhere offers a less contentious solution?
Unless there are other undisclosed interests at play behind the scenes, the rationale for pressing ahead remains unconvincing.
Governance should prioritize stability, consultation, and the protection of livelihoods.
Onitsha Main Market has endured enough upheaval over the years. It should be preserved, improved only where necessary, and allowed to continue serving the people who depend on it daily.
Governor Soludo should listen to the voices of traders and residents. For the sake of peace, economic recovery, and public trust, the message is simple and clear: leave Onitsha Main Market alone.
