I read with utter bewilderment, an article titled ‘Stemming Northern Marginalization: In defence of Sanusi’, written by one Shehu Abubakar, published in the Thursday, March 4, 2010, edition of Guardian newspaper.
The article not only lacks logic, it also smacks of total ignorance. I am highly surprised somebody educated enough to write that piece could hold such a lugubrious opinion. Even more surprising is how Guardian, a newspaper reputed for selectively publishing only quality articles, found the article worthy of gracing its page.
It can easily be argued, as most Nigerians do to justify obviously absurd views, that the writer is entitled to his opinion, but some opinions are just too perilous for public consumption. They are better kept in the holder’s chest or at best, voiced out in beer parlours. Or how else can one describe a reasoning in support of a CBN governor of a whole country, deliberately churning out policies that favour only a section of the country? To do so is height of absurdity, even more preposterous is to defend such openly. If the CBN governor truly has such agenda, that is.
At this juncture, it is necessary to state that I strongly believe in Mr. Lamido Sanusi’s efforts in sanitizing the banking system and I have more than enough reasons to believe that the Kano prince has no sectional agenda. This I have argued in my past write ups(see my articles: ‘An Engagement Two Sanusi Critics”, The Sun, October 14, 2009; ‘The Lamido Sanusi I didn’t Know’, ThisDay website, July 26, 2009 and ‘Questions for Renaissance Professionals’, Daily Trust, December 28, 2009).
The writer tried to point out two things from the article. One, that pre-Sanusi, the north had been marginalized in the economy, specifically in the banking sector. Two, that Sanusi is out to correct this ‘anomaly’. This is most embarrassing.
By that article, the writer admits that all the actions of the CBN governor are deliberately pro-North and anti-South. The article is most uncharitable to the CBN governor, even as it is embarrassing to those of us that have argued, with reasonable facts, that the governor may not have a sectional agenda.
I do not have the luxury of space to rehash here the litany of arguments that prove that the CBN governor’s actions are purely altruistic as I did in my previous write-ups, but it is necessary to look at some of the ‘points’ raised by the writer, before consigning it to its rightful place in the trash can.
First, the writer needs to be educated that neither Soludo nor Sanusi had/has a sectional agenda. Soludo’s consolidation policy was never anti-north, just as Sanusi’s sanitization has no regional coloration. A cursory revisiting of the major policies of the two men’s reforms will suffice.
Soludo’s diagnosis of the situation at hand when he came on board was that Nigerian banks were just mushrooming, without any concrete strength and can hardly compete at the global stage. It was along this line of thought that the professor of Economics came up with a 13-point reform agenda, chief and most popular among which was shoring up of banks’ capital base.
Prior to this policy, the north fully owned just one bank - Bank of the North- plus a couple of other banks with partial northern interest like Habib Bank jointly owned by the Abiola and Yar’adua families. Then we had 89 banks in the country. Except I have forgotten the ratio I was taught in primary school, I don’t know how a region that had less than 5 banks out of 89 will now have more than 1 out of 25, when it was obvious that, save the so-called big four then, all other banks were almost at par in strength.
If Soludo’s 25 billion minimum capital policy was deliberately against the north, then that will be the most unsophisticated way to hatch such an agenda, because all anything/anyone that represented the north needed do was to come with 25 billion and beat Soludo’s trap, and it is a known fact that there are almost as many billionaires in the north as are in South. The Dangotes, Dantatas, Chachangis, Indimis, and Isyaku Rabius of the north are as deep-pocketed as the Adenugas, Otedolas, Jimoh Ibrahims, Jim Ovias and Folawiyos of the South.
Even in terms of experience in running banks, the Umaru Mutallabs, Aliyu Abba Kyaris, and Mohammed Yahayas of the north are as veteran as the Oladele Olasores, Subomi Baloguns, and Pascal Dozies of the south. I don’t know of a better explanation as to why an Aliko Dangote cannot establish a bank even post consolidation or how a Mohammed Yahaya that once managed a bank as big as Union Bank will not be able to nurture a ‘northern’ bank, other than lack of interest. Abubakar’s argument that Soludo’s policy halted the hitherto booming banking system in the north, therefore, holds no water. If the people of Kano and workers at the now desolate Ahmadu Bello building were good enough to work there at that time, then they should be competitive enough to claim their spot in the post-consolidation ‘bank of the north’. After all, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is also from Kano and he competed with the so-called bright brains from the South and rose to the top position in First Bank, a bank with continental, rather than regional outlook.
Now coming to Sanusi’s policies. Unlike his predecessor, his own diagnosis revealed to him the widespread unethical practice in the system, something he had always known and uncomfortable with, even while in the system. The few times he spoke against it as a co-player in the financial system, he was accused by his ‘business as usual’ colleagues of demarketing. But when he was put in position to act, having become a regulator, he acted swiftly. Enter northern and Islamic agenda theory.
In tackling the conspiracy theorists, my ratio, and maybe probability, lessons in primary school come handy again. Post-, and even pre-consolidation, the South dominated the banking system, not a deliberate contrivance of anybody or group but purely a reflection of northerners’ lack of interest in the sector, just as the north dominate national public sector and military. Let’s loosely conclude that all but Unity bank are southern(in actual fact, they are not, as the banks are more national and some even continental in outlook than regional). Now, if 8 out of 25 banks are hit by a policy, my ratio and probability knowledge tells me that there is no way the South, with 24 out of 25, will not be affected. I don’t know of any Danladi or Adamu or Haruna that sits atop a bank when Sanusi came in, what I know are Cecilia, Erastus, Sebastian, Francis and one Falalu.
When the Femi Adekanyes, Ralph Osayemehs, Femi Ajayi Williams, Bode Emmanuels and Mufutau Baloguns were made to go through hell in the failed bank saga of the mid-90s, nobody shouted sectional agenda, but now that the man that is leading the cleansing of the system is from the north, everybody, including, pitiably, Abubakar that claimed to defend Sanusi, now sees it as an attack on the South.
Sanusi, probably due to his radical, leftist, straight-shooting background, may have been a little off-track in approach, it is most unfair to tag his efforts sectional and pre-meditated. I am particularly surprised at Abubakar bringing such a ludicrous argument at this time when ‘northern agenda’ seem theorists to have gone for cover, and saner arguments like impact of reforms on unemployment, investors confidence, entrepreneurship, etc, now dominate public discourse and these are the reasonable platforms on which the reforms can be assessed, rather than one conspiracy theory that only exists in the imaginations of some ethnic jingoists.
Abubakar, by that article, has done worse disservice to Sanusi he claims to defend, than the ‘northern agenda’ theorists themselves, and except he is right that the CBN boss is truly out to redress the ‘marginalization’ of the north, I expect the office of the CBN governor or CBN corporate communications unit to publish a rejoinder to that article.
You may read Abubakar's article here: http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04//indexn3_html?pdate=040310&ptitle=Stemming%20Northern%20marginalisation:%20In%20defence%20of%20Sanusi&cpdate=040310

@Post no need to waste your time, we have a lot of educated illiterates, who still believe that education is all about bein able to read and write.

@ OP

The article doesn't say Sanusi plots to restore BOTN. It was a rebuttal to another article. Neither the first article nor the rejoinder says SLS wants to restore BOTN. The writer of the first article adduced a regional reason for Sanusi's 'clampdown' on bankers, while the rejoinder says it could not be so.

Between, learn to give reference to source of articles posted or credit to author.
I authored that piece and it was published in NVS.
Thanks