By Isiaka Mustapha, CEO/Editor-in-Chief, People’s Security Monitor

As Nigeria continues to grapple with deepening security challenges, the recent suggestion by General Christopher Musa, the Chief of Defence Staff, to erect a physical fence along the nation’s land borders has drawn both attention and debate. At first glance, the idea may seem overly ambitious, even unrealistic, especially when considered within the context of Nigeria’s vast geographical spread and its already strained finances. However, upon closer examination, General Musa’s proposal emerges not only as a bold strategy but also as a potentially transformative solution to Nigeria’s long-standing problem of border insecurity.

Nigeria’s borders stretch over 4,000 kilometers, touching four countries; Niger, Chad, Cameroon, and Benin. Much of this expanse remains unguarded or poorly monitored, creating open channels for the flow of illegal arms, contraband, undocumented migrants, and terrorists. These porous borders have become a lifeline for numerous security threats that have devastated the country’s interior for decades. In the North-East, insurgent groups such as Boko Haram and ISWAP benefit from cross-border supply lines and recruiting networks. In the North-West, foreign-backed bandits smuggle weapons into the country with little resistance. Elsewhere, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and arms proliferation continue to thrive in border communities with minimal government presence.

Fencing the borders, as proposed by General Musa, is not merely about constructing physical walls; it is about creating a structured, technologically fortified perimeter equipped with surveillance systems, patrol posts, and security checkpoints. This type of infrastructure, successfully adopted by countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India, serves as both a deterrent and a monitoring mechanism. For Nigeria, such a measure could be a game-changer in reestablishing control over its territorial space and in disrupting the networks of criminality that stretch across national lines.

Economic concerns have understandably been raised. Critics argue that the enormous financial outlay required for a nationwide fencing project would place an unsustainable burden on the federal budget. But what these concerns often fail to consider is the economic damage already inflicted by insecurity. Armed violence has forced countless farmers off their land, paralyzing food production and causing inflation. Kidnappings and attacks have disrupted trade routes and chased away investment. Communities have been displaced, livelihoods destroyed, and public trust in government eroded. The economic cost of unchecked insecurity far outweighs the projected cost of building border fences.

If fencing Nigeria’s borders can help restore stability, then it should be regarded not as an expenditure, but as a long-term investment in national security and economic recovery. Moreover, such a project can be approached in phases, starting with high-risk areas such as the North-East and North-West. It could also be funded through a combination of public-private partnerships, international aid from counterterrorism allies, and regional security coalitions. Beyond the direct security benefits, the project would stimulate job creation employing engineers, construction workers, surveillance technicians, and local contractors while also providing opportunities for small businesses that would support the supply chain.

The idea of fencing also resonates with the urgent need to reassert Nigeria’s sovereignty. In many border areas, communities live in ambiguity, often uncertain whether they belong to Nigeria or to a neighboring country. This lack of clarity enables criminal syndicates to operate with impunity. A clear, physical demarcation of national boundaries would not only affirm territorial control but also improve the management of cross-border movement. With legal entry points and designated checkpoints in place, the government can better regulate immigration, customs, and security enforcement.

However, the execution of this proposal will require sensitivity and planning. In many regions, border communities maintain cultural and economic ties with those across the border. These communities depend on cross-border trade for survival, and fencing could be viewed as a disruption to their way of life. Therefore, an inclusive approach that involves community leaders, local governments, and civil society is also important in this regard. Creating border markets, allowing for regulated movement, and providing compensation or alternative livelihoods will help ease local resistance and foster cooperation.

Fencing the borders must also be matched with reforms in intelligence gathering, anti-corruption efforts, and institutional coordination. Border security is not just about walls; it is about information, collaboration, and swift response. Without tackling the underlying weaknesses within security agencies, even the most well-fortified fence could be undermined by human failings.

In the final analysis, General Musa’s proposal is neither superficial nor impractical. It is a strategic intervention grounded in Nigeria’s current realities. If approached with political will, transparency, and a commitment to national interest, fencing Nigeria’s borders could significantly reduce the movement of criminals, slow the inflow of illicit arms, and restore a measure of control to the Nigerian state. While it is not a cure-all approach, it represents a critical step toward securing Nigeria’s territorial integrity and rebuilding the foundation for peace, governance, and development. Rather than dismiss it as another lofty idea, Nigerians should see in it an opportunity to begin closing the security gaps that have long left the nation vulnerable.