By Rotimi Fasan
THE head of Nigeria’s Central Bank, the equivalent of the US’s Federal Reserve or the UK’s Bank of England is designated, governor. Despite his immense powers over the country’s financial sector, the Governor of the Central Bank is perhaps the only Nigerian official called governor but whose responsibilities are limited to the financial sector.

The other category of Nigerians called governor are public officials elected (many rig their way or are rigged) into office via periodic elections. They have control over particular states in the country and are the ‘first citizens’ of such states. It’s a position of much power, often abused, and for which many would do anything to attain. At present there are 36 of such Nigerians in accordance with the 36 states structure of our peculiar federal system.

Unlike these elected officials, indeed politicians, the governor of the Central Bank is a political appointee whose continued stay in office is at the pleasure of the President. He, like a typical public servant, should be more seen in his official role than heard outside that role. By order of precedence, the Finance Minister comes before the CBN governor even though the Minister is also a political appointee with neither the clout nor executive powers of a state governor. But by his latest act of philanthropy, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, probably now sees himself as governor, not of Nigeria’s Central Bank, but of a state, to wit, Nigeria’s 37th state. Up till now, there have been muted arguments over the actual status of Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Such person, although a political appointee, has tended to function as and exercised the executive powers of a state governor. In spite of this confusion, there has never been any doubt that a minister of the FCT is a political appointee.

With the kind of action and utterances coming from Mallam Sanusi in recent times it may not be out of order to believe the CBN governor is beginning to misunderstand his brief. In what has sent tongues wagging and tempers rising over the sheer invidiousness of the gesture, Mallam Sanusi made a donation of N100 million to victims of the recent Kano bomb blast perpetrated by Boko Haram.

Any attempt to bring succour to people in sorrow and assuage their pain deserves commendation. Mallam Sanusi in ordinary terms and different circumstances has performed a noble act of philanthropy. But that act has won him, not the commendation, but the anger and condemnation of many Nigerians who see in his apparent act of kindness evidence of double standard, moral failure if not criminal abuse of position. For one, Mallam Sanusi who many have for long seen as a religious bigot, fundamentalist and ethnic throwback, is from Kano. He is in fact from a prominent lineage of the Kano ruling elite. Sanusi’s critics want to know what makes Kano deserving of this act of philanthropy than other towns and cities of, even the North, that have come under the terrorist ministration of Boko Haram. Is this not a case of partiality to one’s kith and kin?

A more fundamental question, one that calls attention to potential abuse of office of a criminal kind, is that which seeks to know from which source Sanusi derives the authority to dole out such largesse. As a public servant, a political appointee, is the CBN governor empowered to dole out such amount of funds, the question goes? Even ministers have a financial ceiling (N50 million?) beyond which they cannot go without approval from a higher authority.

From what section of the rules and regulations guiding the office of the CBN governor does Sanusi get the authorisation to give out public money in this fashion? My immediate instinct on first hearing the news, I believe in a radio report, was one of visceral rejection. I felt deep within me that something was wrong about the donation which was presented as a personal gesture from the CBN governor. What went through my mind were questions on the propriety of a public servant, a salary earner, making such relatively huge donation in an official capacity. Was it his personal money? If not, where did he get the money from? And why was it presented as a personal act of kindness? I only groaned silently that such conduct was only possible here in Nigeria- an early warning sign that somebody somewhere, in this case the CBN governor, might be abusing his office. Since then however, the CBN has come out to say that the donation was part of its Corporate Social Responsibility which is backed by regulation.

Another report gave it out that Mallam Sanusi has promised to return the money should it be found that it was unauthorised. But where will he get the money to repay from- the same CSR fund from which he took it in the first instance? What evidence can the CBN provide for past acts of CSR in this regard?

The donation of N100 million is quite a little sum compared to the loss and pain, a lot of it irreparable, suffered by the people of Kano and other parts of Nigeria that have been visited by the mindless terrorism of Boko Haram. How much can be paid to the many dead or their dependants who died or lost property in Kano? Is it those made orphans, widows and widowers, in the Christmas day bombing in Madalla that some donation of money will compensate? No amount of money would be enough for such people. But what is being questioned here is the principle behind Mallam Sanusi’s act of kindness.

Did he do it because those concerned are Moslems or from his state? Or is this an attempt to back up financially what some have seen as his support of Boko Haram in his Financial Times of London interview? In the said interview, Mallam Sanusi drew a link between the insurgency of Boko Haram and poverty in the North, going on to provide figures showing the relative difference in revenue accruing to some oil-producing states of the Niger-Delta and others in the North. The point then is, is this donation some equalisation agenda between oil-producing and non-oil-producing states?

Mallam Sanusi has conducted himself in my opinion as a responsible CBN governor so far.  More than any other public official, perhaps, he has been most assiduous in his documentation of financial abuse by state officials. It would be terrible indeed if he goes the way of those he criticises. He appears o be courting avoidable controversies in recent times. Yet I believe he might have acted in good faith for what he did could have been done by the best of us filled with their own sense of importance.