Olu Allen
There are moments in a nation’s life when a question does more damage than an accusation. Not because it is loud, but because it is precise, and impossible to ignore.
That is where we are with Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.
Not as a politician. Not as opposition. But as a former Central Bank Governor (CBN) and a public voice who understands the mechanics of Nigeria’s economic engine. When he speaks, it is not noise. It is a diagnosis.
And in his recent intervention, he asked a question that cuts through all the policy speeches, all the press briefings, and all the carefully managed narratives: We removed the subsidy.
We are no longer paying it. So why are we still borrowing, and borrowing heavily? What exactly are we borrowing for?
It is a simple question. It is also a dangerous one.
What Sanusi gets right
Let us begin with clarity: much of Sanusi’s argument is not controversial among serious economists.
Fuel subsidy was fiscally unsustainable. It distorted the economy, drained public finances, and incentivised inefficiency. Its removal was inevitable.
The same applies to Nigeria’s long-standing exchange rate distortions. Artificially defending the naira while financing deficits through monetary expansion was always going to end in devaluation. That outcome was predictable, even inevitable.
On these points, there is broad agreement:
Subsidy removal was necessary.
Exchange rate liberalisation was inevitable.
Maintaining foreign refining dependence in the presence of domestic capacity is economically irrational.
These are not radical positions. They are foundational.
Where Sanusi’s intervention becomes particularly important, however, is on sequencing, the often-ignored discipline of reform.
Removing subsidy and liberalising the exchange rate without first tightening monetary conditions created a shock without a stabiliser.
The result is what Nigerians are living through: a currency under pressure, inflation at punishing levels, and a population absorbing the cost of policy timing.
This is not hindsight. It is a warning that was issued, and overlooked.
The question that will not go away
But it is not the reforms themselves that define this moment. It is the aftermath.
Subsidy is gone. That much is clear. The fiscal “savings” have been repeatedly referenced.
Yet borrowing continues, aggressively.
This is where Sanusi’s question becomes unavoidable.
Because borrowing, in itself, is not the problem. Every serious economy borrows. The issue is what that borrowing funds.
If it is financing consumption, salaries, recurrent overheads, administrative excess, then it is not just irresponsible; it is economically dangerous.
If, however, it is directed toward productive investment, infrastructure, energy, logistics, and industrial capacity, then it becomes a tool for growth and long-term stability.
The distinction is everything.
And right now, that distinction is not being clearly made by those in power.
Transparency is not a political luxury here; it is an economic necessity. Without it, suspicion fills the gap, and Sanusi’s question gains even more weight.
Where the argument needs nuance
There is, however, a small but important area where Sanusi’s position invites caution.
The optimism around domestic refining, particularly the role of the Dangote refinery, is understandable. It represents a structural shift Nigeria has needed for decades.
But transitions of that scale are rarely immediate.
Nigeria is not yet fully self-sufficient in refined petroleum products. Import dependence, while reducing, has not disappeared. Export activity exists, but it is not yet transformative in volume.
The direction is right. The trajectory is promising. But the timeline is still unfolding.
Recognizing this does not weaken the argument; it strengthens its realism.
The Burden of Proof
Ultimately, the burden now rests with the government.
Not to argue. Not to defend. But to demonstrate.
Two straightforward disclosures would significantly change the tone of this conversation:
A clear, verifiable account of how subsidy savings have been utilized.
A transparent breakdown of borrowing, distinguishing between consumption and investment.
These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum standard in a reform-driven economy.
Until they are met, Sanusi’s question will remain, not as criticism, but as an unresolved audit of policy credibility.
A moment for serious governance
Nigeria is not lacking in reforms. It is struggling with trust.
And trust is not built through declarations. It is built through clarity.
Emir Sanusi has done what many in public life avoid: he has asked the uncomfortable question.
The response to that question will tell Nigerians far more about the direction of governance than any policy document ever could.
Because in the end, it is not just about whether reforms are right.
It is about whether they are honest, transparent, and anchored in accountability.
And on that front, silence is no longer neutral.
Allen writes on public affairs and promote good governance.
