Nigeria's House of Representatives has asked the Federal Government to consider banning imports of second-hand clothes, framing the restriction as a lever to revive the country's textile industry.

The request targets a long-established trade channel. Second-hand garments — known locally as "okrika" — supply a substantial share of the clothing worn in Nigeria and move through large distribution markets in Lagos and other cities. A formal ban would cut off that supply at the border and redirect demand toward domestically manufactured fabric and finished apparel.

The House position, as reported by TheCable, is that import restrictions on used clothing can restore viability to Nigerian textile manufacturing. The sector has contracted sharply from its peak decades ago, when a chain of integrated mills spun, wove, printed and sewed for the domestic market.

For sourcing executives, the proposal lands at the customs tier of the supply chain. A ban would operate as an import prohibition enforced by Nigerian Customs, affecting traders, wholesale distributors and the informal retail networks that move used garments from port to market stall. It would not, by itself, add capacity on the factory side — that depends on separate investment decisions.

The legislative call also arrives amid a broader policy push across West Africa to protect domestic textile and apparel production through trade measures. Regional governments have repeatedly turned to import barriers — tariffs, outright bans on used clothing, and restrictions on printed fabric — as instruments of industrial policy aimed at rebuilding manufacturing bases eroded by import competition.

No implementing measure is yet in force. The House request is a recommendation to the executive branch, not a statutory prohibition, and any ban would require follow-through from the Federal Government through customs regulation or legislation.

The commercial question for suppliers and buyers of used clothing into Nigeria is therefore one of timing and probability: whether the executive acts on the recommendation, how enforcement would be structured at ports and land borders, and what transition period — if any — traders would receive.

For apparel manufacturers and fabric mills operating in Nigeria, the proposal signals potential demand protection. Whether that translates into orders, jobs and capacity investment depends on whether domestic producers can absorb the volume currently met by second-hand imports, and at what price points consumers will accept.

The decision the news forces is twofold. Exporters and traders shipping used garments to Nigeria should assess exposure now, before any prohibition takes effect, and monitor Federal Government follow-through on the House recommendation. Textile and apparel investors, in turn, should weigh whether the prospective import protection justifies committing capital to Nigerian manufacturing capacity — or whether it remains, like earlier measures, a policy signal without enforcement behind it.