The Presidency has challenged former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to explain his promise to “open the borders,” insisting that Nigeria’s land borders are already open and that the real policy question is how to keep them secure while facilitating legitimate trade and movement.
The Presidency, in a strongly worded statement on Friday, said Atiku’s declaration risked reducing a complex national security and economic issue to a campaign slogan.
It said the Federal Government reopened most of Nigeria’s land borders on March 14, 2024, and had not reversed the decision.
The statement, signed by the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, also recalled that President Bola Tinubu opened the Kamba border in Kebbi State on February 14, 2026, describing the development as having generated economic and diplomatic gains.
The Presidency therefore asked Atiku to clarify which borders he intends to “open” if elected and, if his proposal is to relax existing controls, specify the measures he would remove and the safeguards he would put in place to prevent terrorism, arms trafficking, smuggling, human trafficking and other transnational crimes.
“An open border is not an uncontrolled border,” the Presidency said, stressing that modern border management seeks to facilitate legitimate movement and commerce while preventing criminals and terrorist groups from exploiting international crossings.
It said effective border governance required immigration controls, customs administration, intelligence-sharing, surveillance, technology and coordinated security operations.
The Presidency linked the issue to Nigeria’s wider security environment, particularly developments in the Sahel and Lake Chad Basin, noting that the country shares international borders with Niger, Chad and Cameroon.
It argued that the continuing threat of terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime made effective border management an indispensable component of national security.
Citing the Global Terrorism Index 2026, the statement said approximately 41 per cent of terrorist attacks occur within 50 kilometres of an international border, while about 64 per cent occur within 100 kilometres.
According to the Presidency, Nigeria’s concentration of security operations around parts of the Northeast and Northwest should therefore not be interpreted as evidence that the country’s borders are closed.
Rather, it said, the deployment of the Armed Forces and other security agencies in those corridors reflects the need for stronger border security.
“The former Vice President, as an experienced politician who has previously occupied the second-highest office in the country, should know this distinction,” the statement said.
The Presidency said political competition was legitimate in a democracy but insisted that pronouncements on national security and the economy should be based on facts, institutional understanding and clearly articulated policy alternatives.
It challenged presidential aspirants to provide Nigerians with detailed plans for strengthening border surveillance, improving intelligence-sharing with neighbouring countries, modernising customs and immigration operations, deploying technology, protecting border communities and deepening regional security cooperation.
The Presidency maintained that the Tinubu administration remained open to scrutiny and should be judged on measurable outcomes in security, economic recovery, border management and citizens’ welfare.
It, however, insisted that such scrutiny must be grounded in facts.
According to the statement, Nigeria’s borders should remain open to legitimate commerce and movement while being secured against terrorists and criminal networks.
It said border management should be technology-driven, intelligence-led and integrated into the country’s broader national security and economic strategy.
“That is the policy conversation Nigerians deserve,” the Presidency said.
It further questioned what it described as Atiku’s apparent focus on reversing or renaming policies and initiatives already being implemented by the Tinubu administration, arguing that the former Vice President should instead present a coherent alternative policy agenda to Nigerians.
