On federal government and Emir’s help

In the tapestry of Nigeria’s socio-economic history, few figures have wielded the intellectual clarity and moral fortitude of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II. His recent remarks at the Gani Fawehinmi Memorial Lecture, which critiqued decades of economic mismanagement and the implementation of current reforms, have attracted a scathing response from the Federal Government. However, the reaction to Sanusi’s comments betrays an unfortunate trend: a propensity to silence critique rather than engage with it constructively. Such a posture does not advance the cause of national progress; instead, it alienates voices that seek to contribute to Nigeria’s collective growth.

At the heart of Sanusi’s address was a dual acknowledgment: first, that the challenges Nigeria faces today are a cumulative consequence of years of irresponsible economic governance, and second, that the ongoing reforms under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration are not without flaws. These observations are neither radical nor novel. Indeed, Sanusi’s critique mirrors the assessments of countless economic experts, both local and international, who have long warned of the unsustainable trajectory of Nigeria’s fiscal and monetary policies. Far from undermining reform efforts, Sanusi’s speech underscores the need for transparent and inclusive policymaking that commands the trust and understanding of Nigerians.

The Federal Government’s response, articulated in a statement signed by the Minister of Information, Muhammed Idris, disappoints not because it rebuts Sanusi, but because it does so with a tone of antagonism unbecoming of democratic governance. To suggest that the Emir’s critique stems from a “shift in loyalty” trivialises his well-documented history of principled advocacy for economic justice. Sanusi has consistently championed reforms that prioritise efficiency, equity, and accountability—principles that transcend partisan loyalty. His track record as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and as Emir of Kano attests to this.
Governments committed to meaningful reform must recognise that constructive criticism is not an act of betrayal but an indispensable ingredient of progress. By dismissing Sanusi’s remarks as a product of personal estrangement, the Federal Government risks fostering a climate where dissenting voices—even those sympathetic to reform—are discouraged from participating in the national dialogue. This is a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of accountability and inclusion.

Moreover, the government’s assertion that Sanusi should “rise above personal interests” reflects a misreading of his intentions. Sanusi’s decision to highlight decades of economic mismanagement—and to question aspects of current reforms—is not rooted in personal grievance but in a deep-seated commitment to Nigeria’s future. His metaphor of watching “a very nice movie with popcorn” while policymakers contend with the consequences of past decisions is not an abdication of responsibility. Rather, it is a candid acknowledgment of the frustration felt by many Nigerians who have long called for decisive, transparent, and equitable reforms.

The government’s harsh riposte also overlooks the nuanced support embedded in Sanusi’s critique. While he refrained from endorsing all aspects of the current reforms, he did acknowledge their necessity in addressing structural deficiencies in the economy. This balanced perspective should have been an opportunity for constructive dialogue rather than a cause for defensiveness.

The irony of this episode is that Sanusi’s insights could serve as a valuable resource for the government’s reform agenda. As a seasoned economist and former central banker, his expertise in navigating complex economic challenges is unparalleled. By alienating him—and others like him—the government risks losing the goodwill and intellectual capital of individuals who genuinely seek Nigeria’s progress.

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The economic reforms initiated under President Tinubu’s administration are ambitious, and their success depends not only on their technical soundness but also on their ability to inspire public confidence. This requires a willingness to listen, to adapt, and to engage with diverse perspectives—even when those perspectives challenge the status quo. Reform is not merely a technical exercise; it is a social contract that demands trust, transparency, and accountability.

In this spirit, the Federal Government would do well to embrace a culture of constructive engagement. Instead of dismissing Sanusi’s critique as disloyalty, it should see it as an invitation to refine its approach and communicate its policies more effectively to the Nigerian people. The government must recognize that criticism, when offered in good faith, is not a threat but a catalyst for improvement.

Sanusi’s remarks, far from undermining the reform agenda, offer a sobering reminder of the need for vigilance and introspection in policymaking. His critique is a call to action—a plea for the government to prioritize credibility, inclusivity, and integrity in its pursuit of economic transformation. For a nation striving to overcome decades of mismanagement, these principles are not optional; they are essential.

All in all, the Federal Government’s reaction to Sanusi’s speech reflects a missed opportunity to foster meaningful dialogue. Rather than stifling critique, the government should cultivate an environment where diverse voices can contribute to the reform process. Sanusi’s insights, borne of experience and a genuine concern for Nigeria’s future, deserve engagement, not derision. By embracing constructive criticism, the government can build a stronger, more inclusive foundation for the economic progress it seeks to achieve. Nigeria’s future depends on it.

Adebiyi wrote in from Akure, Ondo State.