Rejoinder to Kperogi’s piece on Emir Sanusi

I read Professor Farooq A. Kperogi’s article titled “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 both the character and contributions of His Highness, Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, as well as the broader context of his remarks. My intention here is not to disparage 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, nor is it driven by self-interest as implied in the article. His economic positions, controversial as they may be, have always been rooted in his commitment to transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence.

In his tenure 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” 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 President Goodluck Jonathan administration despite being part of the government apparatus, risking his career in the process. His comments at 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 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 is aimed at redirecting these funds towards 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 an 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.

Kperogi’s critique of Sanusi’s remarks is passionate but 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 on economic logic and long-term sustainability.

Nigeria’s challenges require a balanced, solutions-driven discourse. It is unproductive to reduce complex issues to personal attacks or to dismiss individuals who have contributed significantly to national development. 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 is 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 deserves a more balanced appraisal. Let us focus on building a Nigeria where ideas are debated with civility and respect, rather than turning important national conversations into platforms for derision.