By Chukwuemeka Obi Ginikanwa

It was déjà vu on June 9, 2023 when the presidency announced the “suspension” and practical ouster of Godwin Emefiele as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), a statutory institution founded further to constitutional imprimatur. We had seen a prequel of Emefiele’s purported suspension in 2014 when President Goodluck Jonathan “suspended” Emefiele’s substantive predecessor, HRM Mohammed Sanusi II (Sanusi Lamido Sanusi). Then, as it is now, the suspension of the CBN governor raised both political and legal dust.

Admittedly, Sanusi’s ouster was greeted with more furor than Emefiele’s because of perceived personality differences between the two bankers. While many regarded Sanusi, a Kano prince, an anti-establishment man, they say Emefiele lacqueyed powerful men in the administration of the immediate past president, Muhammadu Buhari. His fortunes were not helped by the fact that throughout his time at CBN, Nigeria’s economy has been on an unmitigated nosedive. So, no surprises that across political and societal spectra, his suspension was jubilantly received. Some legal minds have gone ahead to posit that his suspension was legal, but we assert, respectfully, that that position is erroneous. There is nothing remotely lawful about Emefiele’s suspension.

These legal minds depend on the unreported case Sanusi Lamido Sanusi filed against the federal government at the Federal High Court (FHC), challenging his suspension as an authority for their wrong position. In the said case, the federal government (FG) challenged the suit by arguing that the dispute the federal government had with the former governor was a labour dispute, therefore, the FHC was jurisdictionally deficient as labour disputes are within the purview of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). Justice Gabriel Kolawole upheld the argument of the FG and directed that the matter be taken to the NICN. Mr. Sanusi neither appealed against the ruling nor took the matter to the NICN.

Clearly, the court never pronounced upon the merits of the matter and therefore did not declare that the president reserved the prerogative to suspend a CBN governor. That aside, we are of the humble opinion that the FHC should have resolved the controversy surrounding Mr. Sanusi’s suspension. This is because while, indeed, the CBN governor is an employee of the federal government, he is a special employee who holds a very sensitive position that is both constitutionally and economically significant.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (“the Constitution”) went to great lengths to preserve and protect the independence of the CBN that it deliberately denied the president the power to unilaterally remove the governor of CBN. The Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 exhaustively outlined how the governor of CBN can be removed or circumstances whereby he must vacate his office. None of it permits the president to unilaterally “suspend” or “remove” the governor. So, the FHC should have treated suspension of a CBN governor the way the court treats impeachment matters. The FHC ought not delve into the reasons why the governor was suspended. It should not make any finding on the merits of the case in that regard. It should have simply focused on the procedural regularity of his suspension or removal. If statutorily compliant, it shall be deemed a valid suspension or removal. Otherwise, it is not. The NICN could also decide the regularity of the removal of a CBN governor plus the substantive reasons that precipitated his removal or suspension.

That said, there are only four ways by which a CBN governor can vacate his office.

By the expiration of his term – s. 8(2) CBN Act 2007. On the first appointment, a CBN governor is entitled to a term of five years. After that first term, his mandate may be renewed by the president for any other number of years not exceeding five years.
By becoming of unsound mind – s.11(2)(a) of the CBN Act. However, it is uncertain who can declare that the governor is of unsound mind. However, section 144 of the Constitution provides an insight that the president of the senate may be in the position to appoint the medical team that will conduct a test on the CBN governor to determine his mental capacity to lead the CBN. If not the president of the senate, it may behove the court to make the requisite appointment.
By an order of the court: The language of s.11(2)(b) – (e) of the CBN Act suggests that the court must order that the governor be removed from office if it is found that he is caught within any of the grounds enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 11(2) of the CBN Act.
Removal by the president with the assent of two-third majority of all senators – s.11(2)(f) of the CBN Act.
Nothing permits the “suspension” of a CBN governor by the president. That office is too special to be subject to executive whims and presidential politics. If the presidency is desperate to remove the governor, it should approach the court and lawfully obtain a warrant to arrest the governor. Upon his arrest, they can request, by a motion, that the court suspends the governor since being detained and/or under investigation may reasonably hamper his ability to carry out his constitutional duties. It will then be left for the court to decide if, in consideration of the facts before it, whether it would be prudent to allow a person against whom the federal government has established a substantial prima facie case, to continue acting in that capacity as the governor of the CBN.

Conclusively and essentially, the president simply has no unilateral power to “suspend” the CBN governor. The position of the law is that if the president desires to remove the governor of the CBN, he could only do that with the assent of the senate or by obtaining a valid court order. No matter the personal perceptions of the population of Mr. Emefiele, we must insist on and still abide by the rule of law where it concerns him. The reason is apparent. It is to presently protect his constitutional rights and prospectively protect ours when any of us might be faced with similar or any other legal challenges.