CENTRAL Bank of Nigeria Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has become famous for speaking his mind, not minding how that affects the sensitive job he does. If he feels like saying something he just says it. Never mind that he could be the first to admit he should not have spoken like that.

His wrangle with banks since he forced out directors of five banks in August 2009 has formed a major plank of his reforms in the banking sector. Sanusi refuses to listen to anything that could suggest the method of taking over the banks was wrong.

Last week in Washington, where he is attending World Bank meetings, Sanusi celebrated conviction of one of the sacked bank executives, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru, former Managing Director of Oceanic Bank. A court jailed her for six months and ruled she would forfeit assets and cash worth N191 billion.

The conviction, according to Sanusi, vindicated stands he has taken so far with the banks. The cases of the other bank executives are still in court but Sanusi would not wait for the judges before giving his own judgment.

“Everybody we are trying of criminal charges will go to jail. You can put it as headlines. I have no doubts. Maybe, you don’t want me to say it in the open because it could be subjudice. But I really have no doubts about that,” he told the media in Washington.

Sanusi is entitled to his happiness at the conviction. Does he also have a right to pronounce a judgment on cases that are still in court and to which he is a party? What point was he making by this pronouncement, when he accepted that his position was subjudice?

If he has no doubt that the other suspects would go to jail, how did he arrive at the information? Has he seen the judgments? Did anyone tell him what the judgments would be?

Or in addition to being the accuser and prosecutor of the suspects, has he also become the judge?

Why would Sanusi make this statement when he knew it was subjudice? Is this the type of respect he has for the judiciary? Is he again resorting to self help, which he has often been accused of in these cases? If he is sure the suspects are heading to jail, why would he not be patient for appropriate authorities, judges, to convict them?

Is Sanusi trying to force the hands of the judges? Does he also have immunity, in which case the judges cannot take him in for contempt of their courts?

Sanusi expectedly made the headlines the next day to his delight. His conduct, of course, casts a slur on the judgment and the ones to follow since he has created the impression that he knows the verdicts.

He cannot rely on the quantum of evidence before the courts to arrive at this rash verdict. Nigerians, who have followed the controversies surrounding the take-over of the five banks would not be surprised by Sanusi’s impertinence. His critics maintain he is averse to due process.

He has not missed many opportunities to prove them wrong. With some of the cases pending in court, it would have been more prudent to delay the party until they were decided or celebrate in instalments.

The judiciary was bold in jailing Mrs. Ibru. The sentence may not mark the end of the era of impunity (otherwise Sanusi would not deliberately be in contempt of the courts) but it proves that people could be punished, sometimes, under certain circumstances, for certain offences. The point is important.

We are awaiting the sanity these jail sentences would bring to the banks. Even if they don’t, the fact remains that the high and mighty would be reminded and that they could be jailed for criminal offences.

Sanusi has a right to claim his place in making this point. He does not, by any stretch of imagination, have to do that at the expense of the sanctity of the judiciary, where everyone expects to obtain justice under fair settings.

The suspects in the banking cases before the courts have a right too to a fair hearing. If Sanusi can make his case before the courts, others should also make theirs while the judges are left to decide.

It is not in Sanusi’s place to tell us how many of the suspects would go to jail. For him to state this to the media without apologies — and ask them to make headlines of his position — is an insult to the judges who are on this case.

If the suspects are all jailed, as Sanusi has doubtlessly predicted, what does that say of the judgments? Would the judges, on the other hand,  to prove he had no clue about their verdicts, free some of the suspects?

Sanusi may never realise the damage he has done to these cases. When people are in positions of responsibility (and authority) like his, they are bound to be more circumspect in their pronouncements, especially when they are such that they give indications that others may not obtain justice.

Nigerians have suffered unjustly at the hands of banks. We do not think it is only directors of the five banks, who are being prosecuted that have abused their positions.

These abuses would not have been completed in these devastating fashions without the connivance of CBN officials and their colleagues from the Nigeria Insurance Deposit Corporation, NDIC.

Who were the CBN and NDIC officials, who approved those convoluted annual reports that showed the banks were healthy? Are some of them still not in service while others have gone on blissful retirement? We think there is something criminal in their consistent abuse of office, which could be on-going as they are never punished.

There must be a sense of proportion in the pronouncement of public office holders. Nothing justifies Sanusi’s contempt of the courts, more so with his admission that he knows his pronouncement was subjudice.

While he cleans up the banks, part of the due process that he has always been told to follow is to respect the judiciary. If he is emphatically pronouncing judgments on matters in court, he is truly anxious to prove that his word is the law.

It is up to the judges to upbraid this contempt.CENTRAL Bank of Nigeria Governor, Sanusi Lamido

Sanusi has become famous for speaking his mind, not minding how that affects the sensitive job he does. If he feels like saying something he just says it. Never mind that he could be the first to admit he should not have spoken like that.

His wrangle with banks since he forced out directors of five banks in August 2009 has formed a major plank of his reforms in the banking sector. Sanusi refuses to listen to anything that could suggest the method of taking over the banks was wrong.

Last week in Washington, where he is attending World Bank meetings, Sanusi celebrated conviction of one of the sacked bank executives, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru, former Managing Director of Oceanic Bank. A court jailed her for six months and ruled she would forfeit assets and cash worth N191 billion.

The conviction, according to Sanusi, vindicated stands he has taken so far with the banks. The cases of the other bank executives are still in court but Sanusi would not wait for the judges before giving his own judgment.

“Everybody we are trying of criminal charges will go to jail. You can put it as headlines. I have no doubts. Maybe, you don’t want me to say it in the open because it could be subjudice. But I really have no doubts about that,” he told the media in Washington.

Sanusi is entitled to his happiness at the conviction. Does he also have a right to pronounce a judgment on cases that are still in court and to which he is a party? What point was he making by this pronouncement, when he accepted that his position was subjudice?

If he has no doubt that the other suspects would go to jail, how did he arrive at the information? Has he seen the judgments? Did anyone tell him what the judgments would be? Or in addition to being the accuser and prosecutor of the suspects, has he also become the judge?

Why would Sanusi make this statement when he knew it was subjudice? Is this the type of respect he has for the judiciary? Is he again resorting to self help, which he has often been accused of in these cases?

If he is sure the suspects are heading to jail, why would he not be patient for appropriate authorities, judges, to convict them?

Is Sanusi trying to force the hands of the judges? Does he also have immunity, in which case the judges cannot take him in for contempt of their courts?

Sanusi expectedly made the headlines the next day to his delight. His conduct, of course, casts a slur on the judgment and the ones to follow since he has created the impression that he knows the verdicts.

He cannot rely on the quantum of evidence before the courts to arrive at this rash verdict. Nigerians, who have followed the controversies surrounding the take-over of the five banks would not be surprised by Sanusi’s impertinence.

His critics maintain he is averse to due process. He has not missed many opportunities to prove them wrong. With some of the cases pending in court, it would have been more prudent to delay the party until they were decided or celebrate in instalments.

The judiciary was bold in jailing Mrs. Ibru. The sentence may not mark the end of the era of impunity (otherwise Sanusi would not deliberately be in contempt of the courts) but it proves that people could be punished, sometimes, under certain circumstances, for certain offences. The point is important.

We are awaiting the sanity these jail sentences would bring to the banks. Even if they don’t, the fact remains that the high and mighty would be reminded and that they could be jailed for criminal offences.

Sanusi has a right to claim his place in making this point. He does not, by any stretch of imagination, have to do that at the expense of the sanctity of the judiciary, where everyone expects to obtain justice under fair settings.
The suspects in the banking cases before the courts have a right too to a fair hearing. If Sanusi can make his case before the courts, others should also make theirs while the judges are left to decide.

It is not in Sanusi’s place to tell us how many of the suspects would go to jail. For him to state this to the media without apologies — and ask them to make headlines of his position — is an insult to the judges who are on this case.

If the suspects are all jailed, as Sanusi has doubtlessly predicted, what does that say of the judgments? Would the judges, on the other hand,  to prove he had no clue about their verdicts, free some of the suspects?

Sanusi may never realise the damage he has done to these cases. When people are in positions of responsibility (and authority) like his, they are bound to be more circumspect in their pronouncements, especially when they are such that they give indications that others may not obtain justice.

Nigerians have suffered unjustly at the hands of banks. We do not think it is only directors of the five banks, who are being prosecuted that have abused their positions.

These abuses would not have been completed in these devastating fashions without the connivance of CBN officials and their colleagues from the Nigeria Insurance Deposit Corporation, NDIC.

Who were the CBN and NDIC officials, who approved those convoluted annual reports that showed the banks were healthy? Are some of them still not in service while others have gone on blissful retirement? We think there is something criminal in their consistent abuse of office, which could be on-going as they are never punished.

There must be a sense of proportion in the pronouncement of public office holders. Nothing justifies Sanusi’s contempt of the courts, more so with his admission that he knows his pronouncement was subjudice.

While he cleans up the banks, part of the due process that he has always been told to follow is to respect the judiciary. If he is emphatically pronouncing judgments on matters in court, he is truly anxious to prove that his word is the law. It is up to the judges to upbraid this contempt.