By Bashir Uba Ibrahim, Ph.D.
Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II’s recent remarks about the harsh economic policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government, made during the 21st Memorial Lecture for the late Gani Fawehinmi organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA Ikeja Branch in Lagos, themed ‘Bretton Woods and the African Economies: Can Nigeria Survive Another Structural Adjustment Programme’, have sparked a diverse range of reactions across social media.
As the chairman of the occasion, when giving a microphone to comment, he remarked, “I can give a few points here about what we are going through and how it was predictable and avoidable. But I am not going to do that because I have chosen not to speak on the economic reforms or to explain anything because if I explain it, it will help this government. But I do not want to help this government. They are my friends, but if they do not behave like friends, I will not behave like a friend”.
These remarks received and continuously attracted fierce critical rebuttals and approbations from the government and Emir Sunusi’s perceived critics. On the other hand, his apologists are overtly in a tactical defence of such remarks on the pretence that the Emir is a victim of misperception by the public and misinterpretation by the media as they usually used to quote him out of context. Even the Emir himself is reported by the Leadership newspaper lamenting that his remarks were taken out of context, reducing the broader message of his speech to a single paragraph. But Emir and his media warriors fail to understand that linguistically, by the time a person makes an utterance, he no longer has control over it.
To borrow a popular Hausa adage which says magana zarar bunu, idan ta fita ba ta dawowa or what Jean-Paul Sartre called “every word has its consequences” or in what Roland Barthes, the prominent French Structuralist and Post-structuralist literary theorist and critic called in his widely celebrated magnum opus “the death of the author is the rise of the reader”. Similarly, Barthes argues that “once the author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified”. And the text here refers to both spoken discourse (phonocentrism) and written (logocentrism). The former is the spoken remarks by the Emir, while the latter is its interpretations or deconstructive reading(s). Thus, the latter supplements the former in what Derrida called “doubling critique”.
Meanwhile, concerning the above remarks by the Emir, the media houses have done what part of their job, i.e., deconstructive or interpretive journalism. Thus, by the time the Emir loses authority or control over his utterances, it is when the media and the general public have the right to interpret him the way they like. Thus, it forms the crux of their deconstructive readings of Emir Sunusi’s remarks. Therefore, the more remarks are enmeshed with aporia and entangled in contradiction, dislocation and disunity of words or, to borrow Jacques Derrida’s words, “play”, “decentering”, or “rupture” like the one made by Emir Sunusi, the more it attracts deconstructive readings or interpretation from various standpoints.
For instance, Emir’s remarks, as widely reported by the media, sound contradictory if not antipodal or antithesis. Given his unflinching and uncompromising stand as an unrepentant neo-liberalist who always supports the removal of fuel subsidy and currency liberalisation, floating of the naira against the dollar, which ultimately leads to the devaluation of the former, how can you say the situation the Nigerian government find itself is “avoidable” while you are among those who advise the government to implement such policies for reforming the shrinking economy. As the popular social media influencer Aliyu Dahiru Aliyu (Sufi) argues, “…For years, Sanusi has been a vocal advocate of neo-liberal economic policies, including subsidy removal and currency liberalisation–policies now adopted by Tinubu’s administration. These were once touted by people like Sanusi as the perfect remedies for our economic woes, yet their implementation, according to his recent expression, hasn’t delivered the promised relief. So, what fresh ideas Sanusi hides that he can offer if the FG has been friendly towards him apart from the familiar intellectual manoeuvres?”.
Finally, as opined by the father of modern linguistics, the popular Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, that language be spoken as the one used by the Emir or written, i.e., the one used by his deconstructive readers is a system of signs; that the sign (word) is the basic unit of meaning, and that the sign comprises a signifier (form) and signified (mental representation or meaning). Therefore, the signifiers uttered by Emir Sunusi carry variants of signifieds in what Derrida called “transcendental signified”, which are beyond the control of their owner (the Emir) and thus warrant such myriad deconstructive reading(s).
Bashir Uba Ibrahim, PhD, wrote from the Department of English and Literary Studies, Sule Lamido University, Kafin Hausa. He can be reached at bashirubaibrahim@gmail.com.
