Lessons from the N5000 note controversy

viewpoint illustration
| credits: Bennett Omeke

The controversy surrounding the suspended introduction of the N5000 note, spearheaded by the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Lamido Sanusi, may not have ended yet. But it is at least temporarily halted by presidential intervention. Reacting to the National Assembly’s recommendation and overwhelming public outrage, President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday, September 20, 2012, directed Sanusi to suspend the currency restructuring plan, starring the proposed N5000 note, pending more “enlightenment and consultation”. Given the initial faulty presentation of the plan, Sanusi’s mistakes in the process, and the extent of public opposition, it is doubtful if it could be salvaged by enlightenment and consultation projects.

In the meantime, however, the controversy has manifested three interesting aspects of Nigeria’s political culture, from which important lessons could be learnt. The first is the arrogance of power exhibited by those in position of authority. It is evident daily at federal, state, and local levels, unless you choose to look away. Sanusi has never been found wanting in this regard. But he went overboard in this particular case, by presenting the currency restructuring plan to the public as a fait accompli and by stubbornly dismissing public opposition.

We must remember, however, that Sanusi and the CBN did not act alone. The Economic Management Team and the Presidency were cooperative allies. Sanusi also has good company in Jonathan in the suppression of public will for the advice and support of these three institutions, as we witnessed in the controversial removal of fuel subsidy. Jonathan also forged ahead, despite overwhelming public opposition, with his attempted renaming of the University of Lagos. Like Sanusi, Jonathan had no public consultation, not even with the UNILAG community, nor did he follow due constitutional process. It took the court to halt Jonathan’s ill-fated renaming effort just as it took the National Assembly to halt Sanusi’s currency restructuring plan. Citing Sections 4(1 and 2) of the 1999 Constitution and 8(2) of the CBN Act of 2007, the Senate pointed out that the National Assembly is a required participant in the process of introducing a new currency.

Another aspect of our political culture revealed in the debate is the negative construction of opponents, including verbal assaults on their persons. True, Sanusi had some supporters of his plan but there were far too many opponents. One of the star opponents happens to be former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Sanusi’s response did not stop at why he thought Obasanjo’s position was wrong; he went beyond that to call him “a very bad economist”. That was a judgment call Sanusi should have left his listeners to make.

What makes Sanusi’s comment even more unfortunate is that it was preceded by an equally criticised response to Obasanjo’s views on the currency debate by Dr. Doyin Okupe, Jonathan’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Affairs. He dismissed Obasanjo’s view as the “personal opinion” of “an ordinary citizen”. The devaluation of our leaders, past and present, is yet another instance of the systemic erosion of values in this country.

Admittedly, the process occurs in both directions. It is incumbent on political leaders and bosses to treat subordinates and the public with respect. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Once in a position of authority, we often maintain a totallising view of social distance in which subordinates and the public are often treated with disdain. It is this kind of cultural practice that promotes the hiring of so-called attack dogs to respond to opponents and bully the public. In Obasanjo’s case, he himself reportedly said a few untoward things about Okupe after firing him in 2005. That’s why THISDAY (September 15, 2012), subtitled its story on the Obasanjo-Okupe face-off as, “What comes round goes round” (the usual rendition of this idiom is “What goes around comes around”).

Be that as it may, another feature of our political culture exhibited during the currency debate is the tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water. We are often too quick in eliminating something good when trying to get rid of something perceived to be bad. We recently saw how Prof. Bart Nnaji was edged out of office as the Minister of Power despite significant contributions to the power sector. Sanusi is the current official whose resignation is being demanded. Without a doubt, the Nigeria Bar Association has been on the side of the public in opposing Sanusi’s currency restructuring plan. But it went a little further last week when its President, Mr. Okey Wali, SAN, called for Sanusi’s resignation or sacking for his erstwhile arrogant insistence on the plan, despite public opposition, and for his “rudeness” to Obasanjo.

Neither is sufficient ground for Sanusi’s resignation. True, Sanusi should have been more careful and reticent, given his exalted position. But the fact of the matter is that arrogance and rudeness are endemic to our social practices in this country. Ask anyone who has dealt with nurses in General Hospitals or passengers who have dealt with touts at motor parks, or citizens who have dealt with officials at passport offices. This, of course, is no justification for Sanusi’s behaviour. But what about those things Sanusi has done right, but nonetheless controversial? His bank restructuring project was initially opposed but it eventually revealed some bank executives as mega-thieves of depositors’ funds. He “arrogantly” insisted on legislators’ jumbo pay and said it to their faces. Similarly, he equally successfully withstood pressure from the IMF to devalue the naira.

Sanusi’s case thus illustrates the binary opposition that underlies our political behaviour: We eulogise an offical and sing his praise when we think he has done something we like. But in no time, we often quickly forget what he had done right and blame him for a mistake or two. He must be sacked immediately, we quickly insist, often without due attention to the relative weight of such mistakes. Yes, Sanusi has made a number of “political” mistakes, but he should not be punished for pursuing his professional opinion. It is in the nature of public office for officials to stand their professional ground once they have the President’s support.

Nevertheless, Sanusi still has some lessons to learn. First, public opinion matters and it should be respected. Second, public perception is critical to successful tenure in public office. Adding rudeness to the perception of arrogance can ruin the best of professional expertise.