{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02166317260656883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011879804332634521, 'mean_word_length': 5.091489361702128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nigeria’s border closure drama: the critical questions

On 19 August 2019, the Nigerian authorities closed the Nigeria-Benin border as part of the country’s efforts to deal with what has been termed ‘massive smuggling activities’ perpetrated at that border. The Nigeria-Benin border is notorious for its smuggling activities, including serving as a corridor for human trafficking and the influx of small arms and light weapons (SALWs). The border closure sparked off speculations that it was targeted at certain states in the West African sub-region. However, Nigeria has denied these speculations, and insists that the closure is targeted at dismantling smuggling cartels whose activities have tended to sabotage its massive investments in the agricultural sector, especially rice production. The issue of unilateral border closure has been a subject of debate among scholars. Scholars are divided on whether states can unilaterally control and close their borders to the exclusion of other adjoining neighbours in this era of globalisation. However, the point to emphasise is that globalisation does not purport to rob states of their powers to exercise authority over their territories including their borders. Thus, the bottom line is that states are under obligation within the context of their national interest to take every measure necessary to assert their sovereignty and protect their economies from unregulated and illegal influx of goods that could undermine their overall wellbeing. There are diverse shades of opinions about the soundness or otherwise of the border closure policy. This notwithstanding, the border closure has thrown up an admixture of positive and negative effects on the Nigerian economy. On the positive side, there are two revenue-boosting results, namely, a consequential reduction in the projected subsidy regime for refined petroleum products due to the blocking of smugglers; and a marked rise in the revenue receipts of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS). Nigeria’s Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) reported a drop of nearly 20% in the delivery of refined petroleum products, especially premium motor spirit (PMS). This means a likely reduction in Nigeria’s subsidy regime. According to PPPRA sources, each litre of PMS is subsidised by N62.98 based on the landing cost of N207.98 vis-à-vis the pump price of N145 per litre. With Nigeria importing over 90% of its annual domestic needs of PMS estimated at over 17 billion litres, the subsidy regime for 2019 which was projected to gulp about US$5 billion would now be revised downwards. In early October 2019, the Comptroller General of NCS, Hameed Ali, reported a spike in revenue receipts since the border closure to the tune of N5 billion daily. As positive as the news might appear, it was a self-indictment and portrayed the NCS and its leadership