Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State has again flawed the Federal Government’s cash swap policy, insisting that it is cash confiscation.
El-Rufai, an influential member of the Tinubu/Shettima presidential campaign council and one of the five All Progressives Congress (APC) governors that took the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to court over the issue, accused the Federal Government of not obeying the Supreme Court order telling it to maintain the status quo.
On Monday, the diminutive governor, via his official Facebook page, attempted to provide in simple terms what an ideal cash swap should be and provide clarity to douse all the criticisms he and those opposed to the policy face.
Read also: El-Rufai dares Buhari, says all old notes to remain in use in Kaduna
He said, “Currency redesign was approved by the President and announced. Currency recoloring resulted.
“Currency swap was envisaged by section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 as approved by the President. Swap means I take N100,000 to the bank in old notes and I receive N100,000 immediately in new notes. No more, no less.”
He argued that it was completely inconsistent with global practise to swap N2 trillion in circulation and only pump in N400 billion—an amount that represents less than 25 percent of the sum needed to run a cash-based economy like Nigeria.
“During implementation of the cash swap, the CBN withdrew over N2 trillion from circulation but printed only N400 billion, so in effect,” he wrote.
Other parts of his post read, “Currency confiscation was then unilaterally and unlawfully implemented by the CBN. Trade and exchange have collapsed. Human suffering, impoverishment, and economic contraction resulted.
“The policy objective was derailed into a deliberate national fiasco to sabotage the elections in the name of preventing vote-buying. All efforts to get CBN to implement what was lawfully approved failed.
“Some State Governments had no choice but to approach the Supreme Court for adjudication. The APC as a party and the Progressive Governors Forum are unanimous that the policy implementation must be reviewed, and full compliance of the subsisting ruling of the Supreme Court be observed until final judgment on the suit instituted by the State Governments.”
