Suspended Central Bank of Nigeria governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, is a man that can put a canary to shame. Even when he has nothing new or meaningful to say, he must seek out a journalist somewhere and sing his heart out.
As such, it surprises nobody that he has been rehashing some of the inconsistent songs he has been singing in the last few months to The New York Times. What is noteworthy, however, is how The New York Times allowed itself to become a platform for peddling Sanusi’s views without making any effort to reflect Sanusi’s inconsistency and unreliability. While it is possible that the newspaper suffered a lapse of editorial judgment, the poor journalism exhibited by the newspaper smacks of intellectual racism.
To be clear, the issue at stake is not whether The New York Times should have published its recent article (culled by The Nation of Wednesday, March 12, 2014 and a number of other national newspapers) largely reflecting Sanusi’s opinions. Even though the newspaper obtained a quote from presidential spokesman, Reuben Abati in an ostensible attempt to balance its article, what stood out was the lack of a requisite background that would have properly contextualised Sanusi’s views.
For The New York Times to have taken as gospel Sanusi’s views on the $20 billion purportedly missing from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) without reflecting the number of times Sanusi’s figures has changed is a disservice not only to the newspaper but the ideals of good journalism.
It is important to recall that in September 2013 Sanusi wrote to President Goodluck Jonathan alleging that $49.8 billion from the sale of crude oil was missing. He later said he had made a mistake and that the actual figure was $12 billion. In February 2014, Sanusi’s figure changed to $20 billion. The question that naturally arises from this is: how would The New York Times have presented the article it did on Sanusi if the Chair of the US Federal Reserve System flip-flopped in the manner that the suspended CBN governor did?
It is an incontestable fact that a banker who is flippant with figures simply cannot be credible. Consequently, the failure to reflect that Sanusi is inconsistent with figures, and as such cannot be relied upon—whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion—is the great undoing of The New York Times article.
To further diminish its stature, the newspaper related in its report that, according to Sanusi, President Jonathan doesn’t want him to bring out any more information that would get the administration into trouble. This is unfair to say the least. President Jonathan, as everybody knows, is the most liberal president Nigeria has ever had. Moreover, everybody in Nigeria is equally aware that nobody can stop Sanusi, being the canary that he is, from singing, even if all he does is to keep flip-flopping when it comes to figures.
To put this matter in the most lucid way, The New York Times showed great contempt for Nigeria and Nigerians by failing to hold Sanusi to the same level of responsibility in fiscal precision as it would the Chair of the US Federal Reserve System.
The newspaper is, in effect, saying that the Chair of the US Federal Reserve System must be sure of figures before going public with them, but the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria can play with figures all he wants because he is a lesser intellectual being.  This is a grievous insult to Sanusi—even if the man in his eagerness to outperform all canaries do not realise this—and all Nigerians.
It is also important to note that, for The New York Times to dismiss the many infractions listed by the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) against Sanusi by saying he may have “sidestepped civil-service rules” is to raise the possibility that the article was a sponsored foundation-laying report aimed at tarnishing the Nigerian government.
For the avoidance of doubt, the FRCN report listed infractions ranging from tax evasion by all staff of the CBN—due to the institution’s failure to implement the provisions of the Personal Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2007 under Sanusi’s watch—through billions of naira spent on spurious subheads, such as ‘Lunch for policemen’ to more billions purportedly paid to an airline that had no significant operations for over two years. These are just a few of the very specific and detailed charges against Sanusi’s stewardship at the CBN.
Despite the attempt of The New York Times to present Sanusi as a credible source of information, the facts contained in the FRCN report paint a contrary picture. Apart from the shocking portrait of incompetence, financial recklessness, waste and outright fraud that the report revealed, everybody now knows that Sanusi’s CBN could not even observe the corporate governance practices which were the basis that Sanusi himself used in hounding several bankers like Erastus Akingbola and Cecelia Ibru out of their jobs.
The major lesson in the foregoing—which would likely be lost on someone too busy putting canaries to shame—is that a newspaper like The New York Times ought to be more circumspect when putting together a report from a source whose reliability in his designated field of competence is not worth wasting newsprint on.

I am aware that Professor Attahiru Jega, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not obtain his Ph D in English language, but, I can testify to his mastery of the language. I have had the opportunity of hearing him both at close and long ranges, spoke English and, have since concluded that he is, indeed, in the grasp of all the intricacies of Queen English.
And, when therefore, the INEC which he heads, gave directive to all the Nigerian politicians a couple of months ago, not to start political campaign until the whistle is blown, it was understood that he understood the meaning and letters of political campaign. It also means that any person doing something contrary to the meaning and letters of that directive is either daring Jega and his INEC or Jega and his INEC are looking the other way.
The first important lesson a student in elementary English or political science would be taught is that a rally is a group of people shearing ideas on certain issues, usually in an informal gathering, whereas campaign is all about exposing product or idea for sale, either at a rally, in secluded place or by way of media advertisement.
In other words, you cannot hold rally without campaigning but you can campaign without holding rally.
I am surprised that Jega, with all the “turenchi” (grammar) his INEC has been blowing, decided to keep mum and watch as political campaigns are being held around Nigeria by the nation’s politicians who cleverly assigned another name to it: unity rally.
It is not clear whether or not Jega’s INEC decided to pretend not to know that it’s no-campaign directive is being messed up by some politicians chief among them, of course, Is the President of Nigeria and commander in chief of the armed forces, as well as the chief security officer of the country, Dr. Chief Goodluck Jonathan, leading his party, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) along?
In recent times, the President has been cross-crossing parts of the country with PDP top functionaries: national chairman, Board of Trustees chairman, some governors, et al, to receive the returnees to PDP from the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), and have, at each occasion, usually in open space, seized the opportunity to sell the goodness of and campaign for PDP. He was in, among other places, Sokoto to receive former governor Attahiru Bafarawa and, only last week, he was in Kaduna to receive some none descript returnees. And as if the President was begging Nigerians to understand him or begging the issue, he would first drum it before he began his advertisement of PDP’s quality that what he was doing was not political campaign but unity rally. It is as if by merely saying that it automatically changes the reality that it is campaign, pure and simple.
In fact, at each rally, President Jonathan would mount the podium, shout PDP slogan and launch vitriolic attack on and lampoon the people in other political parties, in deed, the APC. He would white-wash and clean-up PDP and received ovation from the supporters and potential supporters for good and courageous talk. And, in doing so, can anyone please interpret the action of the President to me? Was it campaign rally or rally to campaign or simply confusion or evasion of electoral law or Presidential authority?
It beats my imagination as to when the President comes to campaign, how he would do it differently from how he has been doing it at the unity rallies so far.

The closure of five Federal Government Colleges in the North-Eastern part of the country is exactly what Boko Haram wants. It’s absolutely the wrong way to go and I am really shocked and surprised that government came up with this decision. Is this then not a victory by Boko Haram, who have targeted schools with their attack in order to prevent the spread of “Boko” (Western education)? Who then is the winner here?
The nasty incident that occurred on February 24 in Buni Yadi, Yobe State–and many others before it–in which tens of pupils were slaughtered or burnt to death was profoundly shocking and abhorrent. At the spur of emotions, any decision taken to ensure safety of the rest of the children will be right. But governments are not run that way. At a time when men lose their heads, leaders are those who keep theirs.
As a result of this decision, an estimated 10,000 students have been asked to leave Federal Government Girls’ College, Munguno, College of Science and Technology, Lassa both in Borno State; Federal Government Girls’ College, Potiskum and the Federal Government College, Buni Yadi both in Yobe State and the College of Science and Technology in Michika, Adamawa State. Reports quoted the Special Assistant on Media to the Supervising Minister of Education, Simeon Mwakandu announcing the directive of the Minister that the students who are not writing examinations be relocated to unity colleges in Kaduna, Bauchi, Katsina, Gombe and Borno States. As a consequence, the Daily Trust on Monday, reported thousands of these students have been left in the lurch with their parents, who are plunged into a sea of worries, opposing their transfer. The parents have been told to pay for the relocation of their children and wards. Many of them say their children are not going anywhere. I don’t think it is right to push this financial burden to parents. Government has also given conflicting directives on the status of students due to start writing their final examinations in a month’s time. In one breath, government says, as earlier indicated here that those with exams to write should remain in the schools ordered shut. It says, in another, that those students should sit for their examinations elsewhere.
As many parents have continued to argue, the solution to the problems does not lie in the closure of schools. The North-East Zonal branch of the National Parent-Teacher Association which met in Bauchi at the weekend captured those concerns and put the point succinctly when they announced that the federal government was merely shirking its responsibility of providing security by shutting down the colleges. They demanded that the decision be rescinded and security be provided at the colleges.
Reports also quoted unity colleges’ teachers and staff objecting to the school closure saying this would merely confirm assumptions, widely-held, that government is unable to provide security.
The schools closure only smacks of government’s off-handed handling of the situation in the North-East. It is difficult to understand why government has stuck to violence as the only solution to the crisis. When they speak about the issue as the President usually does when he attends Church these days, he mouthes a commitment to dialogue and a peaceful resolution but it is hard to see them making any effort in that direction. Violence on both sides continues to damage the image of Nigeria as a whole. While government has set up at least three committees to explore the possibilities of peaceful settlement of the violence, to wit, the Galtimari Committee; the Maitama Sule-led, Northern Elders Committee, and the latest which was headed by a Minister of the government, Mr. Kabiru Turaki (SAN) which submitted its report amid fanfare and high-hopes, nothing by way of final decision or whitepaper has ensued from the administration. Yet, the whole world continues to tell this country that violence alone won’t solve these problems. In our own experience, we tried the soldiers and the airforce jets against the rising militancy in the Niger Delta back a few years ago. In the end, it was dialogue that brought the violence to a cessation. The excuses often tendered by government apologists is that with the Boko Haram, there are no negotiating partners: it is rubbish. If Pakistan is talking to Taliban and Israel is talking to Palestinians albeit through third parties, there is nothing wrong in holding the thread to BoKo Haram, which Governors in the region say they have found. Rarely has a democratic government anywhere so consciously avoided dialogue. Even so, patriotic citizens must not be deterred from advocating for dialogue and demanding comprehensive and competent security cover for schools, places of worship, markets and just everywhere to protect life.
The only plausible interpretation of the action by the government in closing down schools is that it has failed to provide them with security. Boko Haram must be having a good laugh. This is what they wish to see. But watch out. Government may be laying another veritable minefield.