The former Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (SLS), is not just a traditional ruler; he’s a highly respected economist and a man famous for speaking truth to power. He exposed the massive $20 billion leakage under the Jonathan administration, a move that positioned him as a staunch anti-corruption crusader.
So, when he later publicly declared that President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration had effectively created “another system of corruption,” the statement hit the nation like a thunderbolt. It wasn’t the kind of general political jab you hear every day. It was a targeted, expert critique of institutional failure.
What did he mean? He wasn’t suggesting old-school treasury looting had stopped. He was pointing to a more sophisticated, systemic, and ultimately more damaging type of economic malfeasance that undermined the very purpose of the government’s anti-corruption crusade.
We’re going to break down the three central pillars of Sanusi’s argument and see how this “new system” of corruption quietly eroded Nigeria’s economic stability.
The Three Pillars of the “New Corruption”
Sanusi’s critique was less about individual politicians caught with cash and more about corrupting state institutions through policy failures, incompetence, and a lack of accountability at the top. This is a subtle but crucial difference.
A. The Corrupting Influence of the Fuel Subsidy
This was arguably Sanusi’s most consistent point of attack. The fuel subsidy regime, designed to keep petrol prices low for citizens, became a massive drain on Nigeria’s finances. Sanusi repeatedly called it a fraudulent system, not just economically inefficient.
-
The Mechanism: The government claimed massive amounts for subsidizing refined petroleum products. Sanusi argued that the figures were often inflated, the importation process lacked transparency, and the benefits were not reaching the poor but instead went to an elite group of importers and marketers.
-
The Systemic Damage: By spending trillions of Naira annually on this subsidy, the government was unable to fund critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure. This diversion of public funds—protected by political inertia—is precisely what Sanusi called a system of corruption. It was legal on paper but morally and financially corrupting in practice.
B. Patronage, Cronyism, and Selective Justice
A key promise of the Buhari administration was a non-selective fight against graft. However, Sanusi and other critics argued that the administration was characterized by selective application of its anti-corruption war.
-
The Double Standard: When members of the opposition were investigated and prosecuted, it was hailed as a success. When individuals within the ruling party or the President’s inner circle faced credible corruption allegations, the cases often stalled, were dismissed, or were simply ignored.
-
The Effect on Morale: This inconsistency sends a clear signal: accountability is conditional. This breeds a new, cynical form of corruption where officials feel protected by their political alignment, normalizing impunity and undermining the very institutions (like the EFCC) meant to fight corruption.
Economic Incompetence as a Form of Corruption
Beyond the traditional definition of theft, Sanusi used his economic expertise to frame poor policy choices and fiscal indiscipline as an institutionalized form of corruption because they actively impoverished the Nigerian people and bankrupt the state.
A. CBN Debt and Fiscal Recklessness
As a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi’s critique on monetary policy carried significant weight. He warned repeatedly about the CBN’s excessive borrowing from the central bank—known as Ways and Means advances—to finance the government’s budget deficits.
-
The Damage: Printing money (in essence) to cover recurrent expenditure floods the market with Naira, leading directly to high inflation and the rapid depreciation of the Naira against the dollar. This reckless action, while not “stealing,” effectively stole the value of the average Nigerian’s savings and salary.
-
Sanusi’s Conclusion: If your policy creates a situation where the nation cannot service its debt (with debt service surpassing 100% of revenue at one point) and your sales revenue cannot cover interest payments, the country is, by definition, bankrupt. This financial irresponsibility is a form of corruption against the future of the nation.
B. The Failure to Listen to Experts
Sanusi’s frustration often centered on the administration’s perceived inability to take sound economic advice. He argued that while he and other experts offered solutions to prevent the impending economic crisis, the administration was surrounded by “sycophants” who told the leadership what they wanted to hear.
This unwillingness to act decisively on transparent, documented economic realities, in favor of politically expedient but fiscally destructive actions, became the structural flaw that institutionalized the “new corruption.” The system rewarded loyalty over competence.
The Legacy of the Warning
Sanusi’s comments were ultimately a desperate attempt to break the cycle of Nigeria’s political leadership: a cycle where one administration fights the corruption of the past only to create new, equally destructive methods of financial leakage.
When you look back at the Buhari era, the enduring impact of Sanusi’s statement is clear. It reframed the conversation. Corruption isn’t just about the crime of stealing; it’s about the system that enables it—the subsidy regime, the selective application of justice, and the fiscal policies that destroy the national treasury from within.
Recovering this old URL with this high-value content not only satisfies the informational intent of the keyword but also provides a crucial historical and economic context that remains relevant to Nigeria’s ongoing challenges.
