The Presidency has responded to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s promise to “open the borders” if elected president, stating that Nigeria’s land borders are already open. The Presidency made this known in a statement on Friday by the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, titled, “Atiku and the Borders: Nigerians Deserve Facts, Not Campaign Slogans.” According to the Presidency, the Federal Government reopened most of the country’s land borders on March 14, 2024, and has not reversed the decision. “The facts are straightforward: Nigeria’s land borders are already open,” the statement said. BBNaija ‘Show Ya Sef’ Week 5: Biggie’s Gambit Shakes Things Up, Sheba and Tram Fall Out0:00 / 0:00 “It is therefore difficult to understand which borders the former Vice President intends to ‘open’ when the borders are already open. On February 14, 2026, President Tinubu opened the Kamba borders in Kebbi State, with attendant economic and diplomatic gains.” The Presidency said if Atiku was referring to relaxing existing border controls, Nigerians deserved an explanation of the specific controls he intended to remove and the safeguards his administration would put in place. “If he means he would relax existing border controls, then Nigerians deserve to know precisely which controls he intends to remove, why he considers their removal necessary, and what safeguards his administration would deploy against terrorism, arms trafficking, smuggling, human trafficking, and other forms of transnational organised crime,” it said. The statement stressed that opening borders did not mean removing security controls. “This distinction is fundamental. “But of course, Atiku is unhinged now, and he would say or announce anything to attract and deceive the politically gullible. “An open border is not an uncontrolled border. Modern border management is designed to facilitate legitimate movement, trade and economic interaction while preventing criminals and terrorist organisations from exploiting the same channels. Effective border governance therefore requires a combination of immigration control, customs administration, intelligence-sharing, surveillance, technology and coordinated security operations.” The Presidency said the issue was particularly important given Nigeria’s security environment and its links with developments across the Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin. “This is particularly important for Nigeria because our northern security environment cannot be divorced from developments across the Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin. “As Atiku rightly acknowledged, Nigeria shares borders with Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. While the region continues to confront terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime have proven to be domestic disturbances that have found border porosity as a channel for their export to other countries.” The Presidency cited the Global Terrorism Index 2026 in arguing for effective border management. “The security reality is compelling. The Global Terrorism Index 2026 indicates that approximately 41 per cent of terrorist attacks occur within 50 kilometres of an international border, while about 64 per cent occur within 100 kilometres. Borderlands are particularly vulnerable where difficult terrain, limited state presence and weak coordination create opportunities for terrorist organisations to operate.” It added, “The implications for Nigeria are obvious. As domestic insurgencies evolve into increasingly networked and transnational terrorist threats, effective border management becomes an indispensable component of national security. Terrorists and criminal networks exploit sovereign boundaries precisely because security forces cannot simply pursue them across international borders without appropriate cooperation and legal frameworks.” The Presidency said Nigeria’s security operations along the Northeast and Northwest corridors should not be mistaken for closed borders. “Consequently, Nigeria’s focus on the Northeast and Northwest corridors, including the coordinated deployment of the Armed Forces and other security institutions, should not be misconstrued as evidence of closed borders. It reflects responsible border security.” It also challenged Atiku to provide more details on his proposed border policy. “The former Vice President, as an experienced politician who has previously occupied the second-highest office in the country, should know this distinction. “While political contestation is legitimate in a democracy, statements about national security and the Nigerian economy should be grounded in facts, institutional understanding, and a credible alternative policy agenda.” The Presidency said what Nigerians should expect from a presidential candidate was a detailed policy proposal rather than a general pledge to open borders. “What Nigerians should reasonably expect from a presidential aspirant is not a slogan about ‘opening borders,’ but a detailed explanation of how his administration would improve border surveillance, strengthen intelligence-sharing with neighbouring states, modernise customs and immigration operations, deploy technology, protect border communities and deepen regional cooperation against terrorism and organised crime.” Dare said the Tinubu administration remained open to scrutiny but insisted that such scrutiny should be based on facts. “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration remains open to scrutiny and should be judged by measurable outcomes in security, economic recovery, border management and citizens’ welfare. But such scrutiny must be based on facts.” The Presidency further said, “Nigeria’s borders must be open to legitimate commerce and movement, but secure against terrorists and criminals. They must be monitored with technology, led by intelligence, and integrated into the country’s broader national-security and economic strategy. “That is the policy conversation Nigerians deserve.” The statement concluded with a broader criticism of Atiku’s campaign approach, asking what new policy direction he intended to offer Nigerians. It concluded, “But, increasingly, the former Vice President’s public outings and policy pronouncements raise a more fundamental question: what new and credible contribution does he intend to make to Nigeria’s development that is not already contained in the reform trajectory of the present administration? “Rather than presenting Nigerians with a coherent alternative, Atiku appears increasingly preoccupied with promising to reverse, reopen, or rename initiatives already being implemented.”
