By Usman Abdullahi Koli
I read Professor Farooq A. Kperogi’s article “Emir Sanusi’s Quid Pro Quo for His Friends Turned Fiends” with keen interest. While it was well-written and rich in rhetorical flair, I believe it unfairly misrepresents the character and contributions of His Highness Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II and the broader context of his remarks. My intention here is not to disparage Mr. Kperogi or his intellectual depth but to offer a more nuanced perspective based on facts and a balanced understanding.
Sanusi’s commentary on economic reforms is not new, and it is not driven by self-interest, as the article implies. His economic positions, controversial as they may be, have always been rooted in his commitment to transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence.
As governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi spearheaded reforms that stabilised the financial sector and exposed corruption, notably the mismanagement of funds in the petroleum industry. His leadership saved the Nigerian banking system during the 2009 global financial crisis. These efforts reflect a consistent commitment to economic pragmatism, not the “self-loving sadism” Mr. Kperogi ascribed to him.
At the Gani Fawehinmi Memorial Lecture, Emir Sanusi addressed Nigeria’s economic challenges within a historical framework, highlighting how years of poor management led to today’s difficulties. His statement about not defending the current government’s policies was not a quid pro quo demand but an expression of discontent over the failure of political leaders to reciprocate loyalty or act decisively for national progress.
Sanusi’s critique of governance has often transcended personal affiliations. For instance, he openly criticised the Goodluck Jonathan administration despite being part of the government apparatus, risking his career in the process. His comments in the lecture reflect this same principle: his loyalty is to ideas, not individuals.
The article unfairly caricatures Sanusi as an unrepentant neoliberal apologist indifferent to the suffering of the masses. While he has supported subsidy removal and exchange rate harmonisation, his positions are informed by Nigeria’s fiscal realities. Subsidy regimes, historically marred by corruption and inefficiency, drained trillions of naira from public coffers without addressing systemic energy sector challenges.
Critics often overlook the fact that subsidies disproportionately benefit the elite rather than the poor. Studies by organisations like the World Bank and Nigeria’s Budget Office have shown that wealthier Nigerians consume more fuel and thus benefit more from subsidies. Sanusi’s advocacy for subsidy removal aims to redirect these funds toward targeted interventions, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, which directly benefit the masses.
Contrary to the claim that Sanusi derives “delight from the misery of the masses,” he has consistently called for equitable resource allocation and the empowerment of marginalised communities. As emir, he launched initiatives to promote girl-child education, gender equity, and poverty alleviation in Kano State. His reforms in the Kano Emirate Council prioritised addressing social injustices that have long plagued Northern Nigeria.
For instance, his campaign against child marriage and his emphasis on the importance of education for girls drew both applause and backlash. These efforts single out his commitment to social progress and human dignity.
Mr Kperogi’s passionate critique of Sanusi’s remarks offers no clear alternative solutions to Nigeria’s economic woes. If we agree that Nigeria’s economy has suffered from decades of mismanagement, what is the path forward? Should we continue subsidising consumption at the expense of critical investments? Sanusi’s prescriptions, while debatable, are at least anchored in economic logic and long-term sustainability.
Nigeria’s challenges require a balanced, solutions-driven discourse. Reducing complex issues to personal attacks or dismissing individuals who have contributed significantly to national development is unproductive. Emir Sanusi’s positions are not beyond critique, but such critiques should engage with the substance of his arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks or speculative interpretations of his motives.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads, and leadership—whether in government, traditional institutions, or civil society—must rise to the occasion. While Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II is not infallible, his track record of service, advocacy, and reform warrants a more balanced appraisal. Let us concentrate on fostering a Nigeria where ideas are debated with civility and respect, rather than transforming crucial national discussions into platforms for derision.
Usman Abdullahi Koli is a public relations expert, writer, and advocate for balanced public discourse. He can be reachedvia mernoukoli@gmail.com.
