Writing on the Central Bank of Nigeria’s welter of policies last week, this newspaper’s Barometer column was unsparing of CBN governor Godwin Emefiele‘s boisterous policies. Entitled “New naira controversies”, the column described the governor as too carefree about his monetary policies to bother too much what the impact on the populace would be like. Barometer had written: “Few months to the end of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, the now unusually fecund Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, has suddenly been jolted into life dishing out new and remoulded old policies. First was the naira redesign, over which he claimed untrammeled power, subject and second only to the president’s imprimatur. The Finance minister groaned about Mr Emefiele’s unilateralist approach, but both the president and the CBN governor waved the law under her nose and hushed her up. Inspired and still breathing radical changes, Mr Emefiele revised the over-the-counter and ATM withdrawal limits severely downward, leaving the populace breathless. Consternated, Nigerians complained about the policy overload and the sloppiness of the CBN in taking into cognisance some of the technological (and banking ratio) limitations. The apex bank finally grudgingly consented to some tweaking as the implementation goes along.

“From changing the colours of the notes to revising withdrawal limits upward, the point is that Mr Emefiele is in a radical and revolutionary mood, ‘small’ inconveniences be damned. Nigerians always grumbled anyway, and even when deadlines were extended, they always found tardiness an asset. And so, Nigeria is not only stuck with the politicised Mr Emefiele, they must now swallow his alibis hook, line, and sinker. He has convinced the president that redesigning the naira and revising cash withdrawal and invariably spending limits would trap money launderers, dampen inflationary pressures, and put the noses of vote buyers out of joint. The country whoops with joy over these goals, and the president smirks in agreement. Did the president bounce these policy changes off his advisers and economic team? No one can really tell, perhaps not even the Finance minister who was initially flustered by the whole naira redesign affair.

“It is indeed remarkable that months before leaving office, President Buhari consented to these radical changes. Where were the president and Mr Emefiele years ago when the economy was slaloming downhill? They claim to be acting in defence of the value of the naira and curbing inflation rate. Noble, isn’t it? But the puzzled public and wary economists will hope that the president and his CBN governor have scrupulously worked out the costs of their policies and calculated their impact to be far more tolerable than the ‘mere inconvenience’ of startling the people into financial stupor.”

Little did anyone know that when the piece above was being penned, the usually melancholic Mr Emefiele was close to changing his mind on the withdrawal limits he had indicated there was no going back on. He had offered eloquent reasons for standing pat on the limits, and his justifiers had insinuated that only currency hoarders and election and vote buyers would be fazed by the drastic limits. But for the kind of economy Nigeria runs, not to say the terrible technological and attitudinal limitations that make the policy a little far-fetched, it was surprising that the whole CBN and the approving presidency did not work out the costs. During the week, the World Bank was kind enough to warn of the harmful effects of the revised withdrawal limit policy, while the public on whose political behalf Mr Emefiele claimed to be acting also came down hard on the CBN. After a little soul-searching, and perhaps some consideration of the impending failure of the policy, Mr Emefiele backtracked.

Some unkind commentators have tried to draw a connection between Mr Emefiele’s backtracking and the unsettling accusation of terrorism financing levelled against him, particularly the merciless investigations he was subjected to by the Department of State Service (DSS). He had denounced the allegations, and some busybody civil society organisations had waltzed into the fray to defend him by staging public rallies in his favour; but the DSS would not back down, and many of his critics insisted that he was too political and politicised to be of any further use to the country and the economy he had immersed in politics of the most pernicious variety. While unkind commentators had drawn a link between the secret service investigations and his policy reversal, others had also suggested that the CBN backed down because it had just become aware of the political and economic implications of rousing the alienated and impoverished public to fury. As a matter of fact, the CBN has not really offered any convincing explanation for the policy reversal. Mr Emefiele must now hope that the public anger against him would subside, and the terrorism financing investigation would cool. But if they don’t, he will have to find new and more persuasive ways of mollifying the rage of a people rightly agitated by his elaborate politicisation of his office and monetary policies.

Weekly over-the-counter and ATM withdrawal limits by individuals have been revised more sensibly to N500,000 per week instead of the constraining N100,000 per week. This would still tighten things around an economy that is still significantly cash-based, but it assuages the needless tension raised and stoked by the carefree Mr Emefiele. He wants to catch election thieves and money launderers, in short the corrupt; he will now need to be more creative and imaginative, perhaps than he is capable, seeing how often simplistic and naïve he can get in tweaking the economy and baiting politicians. But the final joke is not on him. What would commentators say about the presidency which virtually gave Mr Emefiele a blank cheque to deploy monetary tools to catch currency hoarders, speculators and ‘thieves’? If the CBN was slothful in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of its policies, should the presidency in an election year not be more cautious and painstaking? What the CBN reversal has shown is that both the apex bank and presidency have been quite optimistic in dealing with the subject matter, if not entirely with the running of the country and appreciation of the grave existential issues that confront Nigeria.

Mr Emefiele has done more than enough to earn the sack, what with his blithe and inadvisable plan months ago to run for president at the prompting of a coterie of national cynics who exhibit the most egregious contempt for the country and its institutions, regardless of what the constitution stipulates. But what may pass as the gravest threat to his tenure as CBN governor is the continuing skepticism of the public to the new (coloured, not redesigned) notes. Apart from the shortage of the notes, Nigerians themselves sneer at the quality of the paper notes, think poorly of the drab design, and are simply not enthusiastic to carry or spend them, believing, perhaps without foundation, that the naira has been massively counterfeited. If the CBN would not act quickly to douse skepticism about the notes, they could find themselves confronting a crisis they may not be able to manage easily.

Already, based on the controversies over the notes and the many investigations swirling around him, including the N89trn stamp duty scandal and the terrorism financing allegations, Mr Emefiele may become truly sicker than he has pretended to be in order to escape scrutiny by the House of Representatives. Except his many friends in powerful places whom he had been good to begin to rally to his cause, he may be consumed by the controversies triggered by the new notes, withdrawal limits, and now stamp duty heist. It is not clear altogether whether he still has the initiative.

Obi’s sophistry and Okupe’s dilemma

Both Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi and the party’s former campaign director-general Doyin Okupe have tried to put a spin on last week’s conviction of the latter by a Federal High Court in Abuja. On December 19, Dr Okupe was found guilty of collecting over N200m in cash from the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) during the Goodluck Jonathan administration in violation of the Money Laundering Act, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment with an option of a fine of about N13m. He promptly paid the fine and avoided jail. For a case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before the Federal High Court in Abuja in 2019, and a straightforward judgement delivered by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, it is mystifying how the whole thing, in the view of Mr Obi and Dr Okupe, suddenly became entwined with the current ‘enemies’ of the two LP politicians.

Responding to the judgement, Dr Okupe, who has since resigned as the DG of the Obi-Datti Presidential Campaign Council for obvious reasons, gloated that his enemies had failed again. He did not specify the enemies he had in mind or in what other ways they had tried to undo him and failed the first time. More mystifying is Mr Obi’s oblique suggestion that the conviction of Dr Okupe equated with someone or a group out to hinder his presidential ambition. Both gentlemen are of course given to hyperbole, but for the former campaign council DG, his ethical conflicts could impel him to make unfounded exculpatory claims about enemies sabotaging his interest. Mr Obi, though full of grandstanding, could not afford to be as cavalier as his former campaign DG. By virtue of the high office he covets, even though he has often not shown a grasp of its importance, he ought to be more circumspect.

While interacting with reporters last week in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, during a campaign stop and shortly after the conviction, Mr Obi feigned a curious form of disinterest and ignorance in the judgement against his then DG. Said he: “I am hearing about it (the conviction) just like you. I am still studying what is coming out of the court and everything. I believe in the rule of law. It is not going to demoralise me. Today, when I arrived Akwa Ibom, somebody asked me why I haven’t been using my aircraft because it has been grounded and all that, and I said to him that nothing demoralises me. In my life, I have never stayed where they dropped me, otherwise, I would have been where they dropped me before. This election, if they like, let them do anything about people who are around me. I will get there.” The aircraft he uses for his campaign had earlier been grounded by aviation authorities, a move he had insinuated was politically motivated. But by likening the Okupe conviction to the grounding of his campaign aircraft, he seems to suggest that regardless of what ‘they’ do to him, he “will get there”, meaning the presidency.

It is not clear to anyone, except perhaps to Mr Obi himself, how a case filed in 2019 by the EFCC, ever before he dreamt of running for president, amounted to erecting barriers before him. “If they like, let them(?) do anything about people who are around me; I will get there” surely could not be referring to the EFCC. It leaves only one possibility: his political opponents. But he has also declared his filial bond with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), particularly its presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, against whom he is dead set against saying any bad word. So, again, that largely rules out PDP. Might he then be referring to the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the ‘them’ who could do anything to him and his ambition? It seems so; but even that would be reckless and far-fetched. His presidential candidacy is recent, and his fallen DG assumed office even more recently. Mr Obi was simply covering up for his lack of due diligence in checking out the bona fides of his campaign aides. Even more ominously, it is clear that when he declared for the presidency as well as when he selected some of his aides, his ambition seemed to him equally far-fetched. It has surprised him how his ambition has grown and how many quarters have cottoned on to his contrived personality and goal.

Both Mr Obi and Dr Okupe can put as much gloss on last week’s conviction as they want, not to say also on the prompt payment of the fine in order to avoid jail term, but what no one can dispute is the ethical morass in which men like Dr Okupe sunk when they luxuriated in the bazaar presided over by ex-president Goodluck Jonathan. Fittingly, the former president is now in the Labour Party’s corner. It will be difficult for him to fit elsewhere. And it is even more fitting that Mr Obi has demonstrated his loyalty to Alhaji Atiku and quibbled over the gross and inexplicable degeneration of public morals exemplified by his former campaign council director-general.

Repentant terrorists needlessly mollycoddled

While defending its spending proposal for 2023 before the House of Representatives Committee on National Security and Intelligence, the coordinator of the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), Rear Admiral Yaminu Musa, explained that N2.4bn capital spending would be needed to establish two Disarmament, Deradicalisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Centres to manage repentant members of Boko Haram and other terrorist groups. The policy of course remains controversial. Some commentators had argued that violent extremists, notwithstanding their penitence, must come at the bottom of budgetary priority scale, especially when many of their victims remain traumatised and their economic conditions unimproved.

But the military and administration officials have also always argued that they face the dilemma of either abandoning the repentant terrorists and risking resurgence of militancy or finding ways to rehabilitate them and possibly depleting the ranks of the insurgents. It is not an option to do nothing, they argue. They are right. However, rehabilitating the victims of insurgency is even more pressing. Many of them have had their educational, health and economic conditions completely shattered, and states and NGOs have been left to give them the needed succour. Rehabilitating the victims has left much to be desired. As a matter of fact, observers have been puzzled as to whether the administration has managed to establish a convincing balance between their responsibilities to the victims and their concerns for the repentant terrorists.

In case this balance has been achieved, it is left to the administration to publish the details and prove that beyond the distressing outlook of the IDP camps, much has in fact been done and is still being done by both the affected states and the federal government. This would be hard to prove, however, considering what is publicly known of the IDP camps, not to talk of widespread perception that repentant terrorists are being mollycoddled.