If there ever was any doubt about the abysmal level to which governance and leadership in Nigeria has fallen and how small the minds are in very high places, the needless, if not contrived controversy that erupted over the suspension of embattled Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Lamido Sanusi has cleared the air. Rancorous and highly distracting, Sanusi’s suspension by President Goodluck Jonathan, on allegations of financial recklessness and misconduct was ill-timed, ill-advised, and showed poor judgment. Regardless, the fallout is a sickening reflection of the despicable depth of politicking in Nigeria and testifies to the incapacity of the President to act in the supreme interest of the Nigerian people. Clearly, this is one national embarrassment that was avoidable; the country really does not deserve to be this ridiculed in the eyes of the international community!
Predictably, it has elicited condemnation and effectively divided the country between supporters of the President who see the move as long overdue, and opponents who see Sanusi as a whistle-blower in the unfolding investigation of alleged $20 billion missing from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Although it is difficult to decipher the intricacies involved in the unfolding fracas, the President’s action seemed a reaction of anger and frustration over the increasingly confrontational posturing of the apex bank vis-à-vis the Jonathan administration, and the emerging role and image of Sanusi in the national equation, as a co-president that the country did not elect; and who continues to embarrass the presidency, ignoring the President’s personal call to resign.
Western governments that admire Sanusi as a reformer, and helped CBN set-up a financial transaction tracking system that monitors significant movement of financial resources in and outside the country, by certain high flying Nigerians like the President and his close allies have interpreted the suspension as a fight back from the oil cabal, following Sanusi’s public disclosure of $20 billion allegedly missing from the NNPC; and for which he was set to testify to the Senate committee investigating the fuel subsidy regime, has inadvertently politicized the anti-corruption fight. This is why the suspension appears too expedient and smacks of desperation to silence him. This must not be allowed to happen. Either way, it raises fundamental questions of due process and the rule of law: whether the President violated the law by acting outside the CBN Act.
As far as the law goes, Section 8 of the CBN Act of 2007 covers the appointment, while section 11 governs the tenure. To be appointed CBN Governor, two-third majority of the Senate must approve by vote. While Section 11 (f) empowers the president to remove the CBN governor, the section is clear that he can only do so with the support of two-thirds majority of the Senate. Section 11 clearly lists the instances when the CBN governor or any of his deputies can be removed from office; and none of such instances includes unilateral suspension by the president. The President may mischievously claim he merely suspended Sanusi and not removed him but that is still outside the CBN Act. The only mention of “suspension” in section 11 (1) (d) relates to removal of the governor based on suspension from professional practice; in this case, by the Chartered Institute of Bankers in Nigeria (CIBN). Jonathan is not the CIBN as contemplated by the law; therefore, having failed to avail himself of this legal requirement, his purported suspension of Sanusi is unconstitutional, baseless and entirely without merit.
Also, there is nothing in the Public Service Commission Rules that validates the President’s action. Although the CBN governor is a public officer according to Section 318 of the Constitution, the Public Service Rules do not govern his appointment. Even, as some have suggested that the President may have invoked Rules 04302-04306, and 04402 of the Public Service Rules, relating to the suspension from office pending investigation of allegations of misconduct, in reality, the President cannot invoke that rule because only the Federal Civil Service Commission can invoke those disciplinary powers. Since the CBN is not answerable to the Ministry of Finance, in that regard, it is an autonomous body made so by the legislature in order to guarantee its efficiency. For the avoidance of any doubt, Rule 04305 provides that “suspension should not be used as a synonym for interdiction.” Therefore, any desperate elopement from the provisions of those legislations and a resort to the public service rules to achieve a desire of an ouster from an office that enjoys a statutory flavor is illegal.
Meanwhile, it has emerged that as far back as June 7, 2013, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRC) had recommended to President Jonathan that Sanusi be removed and an investigation launched into the operations of the apex bank. Ranging from what amounts to tax evasion by CBN staff, through billions of naira spent on spurious items to more billions paid to an airlines that were neither registered, nor had any significant operations in Nigeria, Sanusi’s CBN, according to the FRC was a cesspool of corruption and unbridled waste. Apart from the galling picture of incompetence, financial recklessness, waste and fraud painted by the FRC, Sanusi’s CBN is accused of not even observing the corporate governance best practices which were the basis that he hounded several bankers like Erastus Akingbola and Cecelia Ibru to jail.
Regardless of what is being claimed that Sanusi may have done, he is now playing a whistle blowing role as the peoples’ advocate, exposing corruption, while the president and his ministers are defending. A suspension that, by default, makes it impossible for Sanusi to testify in the probe of the alleged missing $20 billion defies logic and common sense; and stands the fight against corruption on its head. In the circumstances, even without the law, the President’s action is untenable and unacceptable. Nigerians should be wary that the President is sending signals that he would not tolerate anyone trying to expose corruption, especially in the murky oil sector. Surely, that cannot be the intention of the President.
The suspension has attracted a hailstorm of criticism of the president, with the main opposition All Progressive Congress (APC) describing the action as: ”patently illegal, poorly thought-out, in bad taste and will definitely have negative consequences for the nation’s economy.” When an institution like the CBN is decapitated by the President, in such a cavalier manner, it is an invitation to chaos which can send the economy into a tail spin. It is most telling that the FRC in its briefing note of June 7, 2013 to the President warned of this very scenario of politicization of Sanusi’s removal if the President failed to act swiftly. But Jonathan wavered. Nine months after, and with just three months to the end of Sanusi’s tenure, the suspension is diluted with expediency; compounded with speculations of malicious intent.
The allegations in the FRC report, if proven, are enough to warrant Sanusi’s dismissal and prosecution, but these must be handled within the rule of law. The Federal Government has a representative on the CBN board. Is the president saying Sanusi is bigger than the CBN board? The board can take a decision on him just like what obtains in the university, where the governing council can take a decision on the Vice Chancellor. When such decision is to be taken, he or she would excuse the board members. The president as a democrat is expected to act as one at all times. So, if Sanusi is guilty of misconduct, the board should be allowed to decide that. The government should petition the CBN board and allow them address the issue; or wait for Sanusi to end his tenure and then open an official investigation. This is what due process and the rule of law is all about. This is what distinguishes a country governed by the rule of law from a banana republic. The government has put itself in a position where it must now extricate itself from an illegality, perpetrated by the President. There is no time for prevarication and unfortunately, there are no good options for the President.
