in their absence is it not possible that their agents can do their dirty jobs for them as seen i intercontinental bank,abia state etc

coolG:

Can you show any link between tenure limit and good corporate governance? Will this policy have stopped the enrichment of the sacked CEOs? If yes, how? I think apart from Ibru and Akingbola, all the other sacked CEOs were in their position for less than 10 years. Even in First Bank, their former CEO (S.O Asabia) was in that position for over 10 years, and so was Paul Ogwuma in Union Bank before becoming CBN Governor. So, the tenure limit is complete B.S and  known by everybody in financial services sector as targeting 2 people. The third guy (Skye bank) is what they call collateral damage.

Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance, by limiting the duration of effect. Else why do we have limited tenure in political office? why not let them be voted out by the populace?   while I agree that some people who could still be productive will be cut short, the risk is not worth the reward. It gives room for the injection of fresh blood and new ideas and not the stagnation that comes from unlimited tenure.The banking sector should be supervised defensively and not left to run amok like the cabal they have in the US. The interest of depositors should be ahead of the personal gain of the shareholder. It is not the responsibility of the CBN to make sure that a bank is making the most profit posiible, but rather that depositor are protected from poor management.   

There are a couple of northerners as EDs in the new interim management of the so-called distress bank or have you not noticed? Google for the interim management appointments in those bank.

So there should be no northerners in banking again?
People say sanusi has ulterior motive aka northern agenda, I have only asked that you provide evidence that any of the distressed bank are now in the hands of the northerners (by stating how many), and not if there were any northerners in the first place.

I am curious to know, do you know any policy that has been instituted or implemented by the current CBN that would have stopped the self-enrichment of some of the sacked CEOs?

It has never been a lack of policy but rather a supervisory oversight that allowed for the level of corruption in those banks. Still policy changes on such as check limits, narration on interbank transfer, information disclosure in financial statements etc all will make for a more transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices. The enactment of a law does not stop crime, but the enforcement dissuades future offenders.

That said, i do not think the policy is illegal but i believe it is ill-contrived to remove the 2 targeted CEOs and does not and will not serve any single purpose in advancing any of the banks. It has nothing to do with the failings of the banks.

Without prove, you have decided that it is aimed solely at those two. How does Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect  Sanusi?
The CBN has not said that the move is because those banks are distressed, but rather that it is better for the system if CEOs dont remain in office indefinitely. Under the current guise, a majority shareholder can remain CEO  for life and act in a manner that favors the shareholders (which in this case is mainly himself) at the expense of the depositors. The alternate solution is to bar anyone from having substantial shares in a bank, and I feel that would be unfair and moreso will likely require a review of the company act. The likes of Ovia can still own their banks and will ave a major say in who replaces them, they have just lost their executive powers. No individula should have a life sway on public funds, be it ina political office or otherwise.

Finally, this is just an observation: Have you noticed you have a pattern in positions you take. Starting from Ribadu (whom i like with all his flaws) to Sanusi and to Mutallab the terrorist. Have you gone back to read some of your statements in the early hours of the underwear bomber? It may seem as if you support persons or activities of a particular part of the country. Again this may not be representative of who you are but your cumulative statements are suggestive. I hope you do not see this as an insult but rather an opinion to reflect on.

If you think I am a northerner or pro north, then you are gravely mistaken. I just dont subscribe to using the ethnicity argument to make a point. I dont know which comments about Ribadu you are referring to, but for Sanusi, I supported his appointment and subsequent actions, because I feel he is the kind of governor the CBN needed.

The CBN serves as policy maker but also acts in a supervisory role, and it is the failings in carrying out the latter that has resulted in the mess that we call a banking sector (in fact I was hoping they would sack tunde lemo for his failings). All the increased capitalization carried out by Soludo and his predecessors were like pumping water into a leaking tank. Going forward, I actually think it would be better they split off the supervisory arm of the CBN so that we can have people that head each arm be more suited to their jobs, as we are yet to have one that is rounded in both.

As to the Mutallab issue, I at no point approved of his actions, and only wanted the facts made bare before people jumped to conclusions. I am sure you know about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that someone who learnt to fly a bi-plane flew a 747 into the WTC, or all the numerous fictitious black man crimes. I am just not quick to condemn a man on the words of the media nor the US government. Also I do not subscribe to the notion of equating the actions of an individual or handful of people to the desires of an entire ethnic group. It was that line of thinking that led us to the civil war, when the actions of  handful of Igbos were equated to the wishes of the entire ethnic group. Most criticize the northerners for it and yet want to apply same MO. Mutallab is responsible for his action, and his immediate family, talk less of the entire northern region should not be held responsible for it, nor should his action be extrapolated beyond himself. People were quick to start generalizing on the issue, when the kid is not even the typical Nigerian, talk less a northerner.

It sad that it is only the masses that make issues about ethnicity, while the elites are busy embezzlement our money under the banner of one nation

For those that may feel I am touting Sanusi as being perfect - I am not. I am sure he has his flaws and affiliations like any other human being. In fact I will be shocked if he clamps down on the forex black market which is almost a pure northerners' gig.
Rather I am in support of his clearing out the rot in other areas, so that when his tenure is up, his successor (almost surely southerner) will be like him and clear out the remaining rot that Sanusi might have 'overlooked'.
I am less interested in the good/bad things you did not do, but in the ones you did. Beyond the rumour mongering and dooms prophecies by some, I have not seen anything inherently inimical in the policies of sanusi. While they might not be the best (as nobody knows it all), they are all a positive step from the status quo.

Before leaving the office Jim Ovia, Tony Elumelu, Akinfemiwa they should be properly Probed not after leaving office only to hear again that any of them have 200 houses pls

biina:

Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance, by limiting the duration of effect. Else why do we have limited tenure in political office? why not let them be voted out by the populace?   while I agree that some people who could still be productive will be cut short, the risk is not worth the reward. It gives room for the injection of fresh blood and new ideas and not the stagnation that comes from unlimited tenure.The banking sector should be supervised defensively and not left to run amok like the cabal they have in the US. The interest of depositors should be ahead of the personal gain of the shareholder. It is not the responsibility of the CBN to make sure that a bank is making the most profit posiible, but rather that depositor are protected from poor management.   

Did you just justify the bank tenure limit by asking why the limited tenure in political office? That's where the fundamental problem lies in your assessment. The principle of tenure limit in democratic government (usually at presidential and gubernatorial positions) is derived from equality under the law with the purpose being to stop any person at that position from oppressing the populace and/or level the playing ground with incumbents not participating. If you actually believed that comparison you made then there's a significant problem with the way both of us understand business as it is being practiced worldwide and in Nigeria till this week. You said "Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance". That is just completely false. Evidences do not support that statement. You will be hard pressed to see a prescribed tenure limit in the same industry in most countries of the world.
I don't understand what you mean by cabals they have in US running amok. That is a sweeping statement rooted in fiction.

So there should be no northerners in banking again?
People say sanusi has ulterior motive aka northern agenda, I have only asked that you provide evidence that any of the distressed bank are now in the hands of the northerners (by stating how many), and not if there were any northerners in the first place.


I was only responding specifically to your question. Remember you asked if there's any northerner in the interim management of those banks. If you said in the hands of northerners, then the answer is No but the banks have not been sold yet. Besides even if the banks are sold to northerners i do not have complaints as long as the banks are appropriately valued. If you research well, you will discover that most CEOs do not consider banks ran by the current northern elites as competition. There's a reason for that. I couldn't care less what people say about Sanusi, i am concerned about his plans, policies and actions to engineer development and growth in the country.

It has never been a lack of policy but rather a supervisory oversight that allowed for the level of corruption in those banks. Still policy changes on such as check limits, narration on interbank transfer, information disclosure in financial statements etc all will make for a more transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices. The enactment of a law does not stop crime, but the enforcement dissuades future offenders.


Check limit and narration on interbank transfer will make for a transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices? how? Where did it contribute to the sacked CEOs self-enrichment? What the check limit policy is doing is to force the banks to use electronic clearing system of CBN or Nigeria Interbank more. The CBN electonic system was implemented by previous CBN chief to enhance the bank's efficiency and reduce operational risk. Information disclosure in financial statements was neither conceived nor instituted by the current CBN chief. The previous CBN chief instituted full disclosure and common year policy and gave the banks a deadline to comply. It is ironic that Intercontinental complied with information disclosure policy as at April 30, 2009 yet the ex-thief (sorry, ex-CEO) was still busy pilfering. Contrary to your observation, most policies were enforced but the frauds discovered in all these banks are what auditors call management override. If you ask around you will soon discover it is the most difficult fraud to identify. It took actual physical examination by a fairly honest CBN auditors and examiners to smoke the crooks. The problem has always been that the CBN auditors and examiners collude with the banks. For whatever reason they did their work last year.

Without prove, you have decided that it is aimed solely at those two. How does Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect  Sanusi?


I did not state that as a fact. I said "I believe" and my reason is simple. It has no correlation to the problem at hand. 6 of the 8 CEO's removed had stayed less than 10 years with as many as 3 staying less than 5 years. More importantly, there is no correlation to the concept of corporate governance, which at its most basic definition is a way to conduct business with integrity as articulated by the board of directors and shareholders of a business as long as it is within the confines of the regulations of the industry. You can see why i said i do not believe it is illegal but rather a tool to achieve a purpose and does not belong in corporate governance.

If you are wondering how Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect Sanusi, then you might want to consider that one of the oldest motivation to commit murder is jealousy. In this case, professional jealousy. It might look petty but it has been proven to be a powerful incentive. I am just answering your question.

The CBN has not said that the move is because those banks are distressed, but rather that it is better for the system if CEOs dont remain in office indefinitely. Under the current guise, a majority shareholder can remain CEO  for life and act in a manner that favors the shareholders (which in this case is mainly himself) at the expense of the depositors. The alternate solution is to bar anyone from having substantial shares in a bank, and I feel that would be unfair and moreso will likely require a review of the company act. The likes of Ovia can still own their banks and will ave a major say in who replaces them, they have just lost their executive powers. No individula should have a life sway on public funds, be it ina political office or otherwise.


Per your last sentence:
You keep saying something that is fundamentally not true. Banks are not public utility company. Banks are private sector business. People who put their money to start a business decide who should run their business and when the person should run their business. This is not a government post. The shareholders does not implement federal character in formation and running of their business. They do not pay their CEOs from a mandatory citizen tax. This is not national cake. It is not an equal participation business rather an equal opportunity employer. I clearly appreciate the role of CBN in regulating the sector, safeguarding depositors fund and the excesses of the CEOs but this policy is not one of them.

The notion of holding a life sway on public funds is a misconception.

If you think I am a northerner or pro north, then you are gravely mistaken. I just dont subscribe to using the ethnicity argument to make a point. I dont know which comments about Ribadu you are referring to, but for Sanusi, I supported his appointment and subsequent actions, because I feel he is the kind of governor the CBN needed.

I did not say you are a northerner or pro north. I only said that the pattern of your statements are suggestive. But at least we agree on one thing - Ribadu performed fairly well although he had some flaws!

The CBN serves as policy maker but also acts in a supervisory role, and it is the failings in carrying out the latter that has resulted in the mess that we call a banking sector (in fact I was hoping they would sack tunde lemo for his failings). All the increased capitalization carried out by Soludo and his predecessors were like pumping water into a leaking tank. Going forward, I actually think it would be better they split off the supervisory arm of the CBN so that we can have people that head each arm be more suited to their jobs, as we are yet to have one that is rounded in both.


I do think you understand that policies and guidelines are instruments of supervision. If you drill down to the procedures of the supervision, you have returns rendering, reviews and examination (audits). So, splitting the function will make no sense.

You think the bank consolidation is a waste? I only know few people who think the same. It is ironic that you think the previous CBN chief did nothing but when pressed for any change in policy that would have stopped the self-enrichment of the sacked CEOs, you extolled mostly policies that was conceived and instituted by him even though those policies were specifically to improve efficiency and reduce operational risk (and does not lend itself to issue at hand)

[b]As to the Mutallab issue, I at no point approved of his actions, and only wanted the facts made bare before people jumped to conclusions. I am sure you know about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that someone who learnt to fly a bi-plane flew a 747 into the WTC, or all the numerous fictitious black man crimes. I am just not quick to condemn a man on the words of the media nor the US government. Also I do not subscribe to the notion of equating the actions of an individual or handful of people to the desires of an entire ethnic group. It was that line of thinking that led us to the civil war, when the actions of  handful of Igbos were equated to the wishes of the entire ethnic group. Most criticize the northerners for it and yet want to apply same MO. Mutallab is responsible for his action, and his immediate family, talk less of the entire northern region should not be held responsible for it, nor should his action be extrapolated beyond himself. People were quick to start generalizing on the issue, when the kid is not even the typical Nigerian, talk less a northerner.[/b]

If you still believe that it was not muslim fanatics that piloted the plane into those towers, then i must admit i underestimated you.

It sad that it is only the masses that make issues about ethnicity, while the elites are busy embezzlement our money under the banner of one nation

You are partially correct! But it is not only the masses that do that. The elites continue to use ethnicity and religion to hold down their people while they continue to steal. Falau Bello, the CEO of Unity Bank, with all his education believe consolidation of the banks handed economic power to one section of the country. As if the selling of shares pre-consolidation by the banks including over 12 northern banks were done in one section of the country. How does he account for the thousands of northerners who voluntarily chose not to buy shares in some of the erstwhile banks that were historically northern. What's the purpose of his statements? Is it not to incite a section of the country while hiding his incompetence to manage and lead a bank. So, the problem is cultural and pervasive. People always claim they are not bias but everyone has a bias. The only distinguishing factor is whether you can keep your bias out of your decision process most of the times (all of the times is not possible) to do what is right for the country or institution.

I always hope for the best for the country.

yuppydon:

Sanusi finally Nailed Elumelu.

too bad

This is a pure case of blackmail.Of course Elumelu knows he can challenge the decision in court and will most likely get ba favourable decision,but he'd rather not as he knows how vindictive Sanusi is.Sanusi who knows some shady deals Tony had pulled especially while they were together will most definitely open a can of worms that will embarrass Tony to high heavens,this is why Tony immediately appointed Oduoza to succeed him

Too bad that the nations apex bank has been reduced to this

Shame on you Sanusi

The obvious target is Tony Elumelu.Jim Ovia had even planned to resign last year,but had to shelve the idea as he got wind that the CBN was about to sack some bank MDs and he didn't want people to mistake his resignation for a Sanusi sack.The man is quite relieved

binna , Tolu 10 and , made some very interesting statements. People are always reading tribalism into everything. Whether Sanusi is beig tribalistic or not that would not exonerate the Ibrus and Akingbolas from any misdeeds.

The banks are plc, and the largest shareholdres are the public and therefore, the CEOs and/or Managers should be rotatted. Thats what's normally done. Also this strategy is damage control. If you know the lavish livestyle the ousted CEOs ( Ibru and Akingbola ) lived, you would understand his reason for coming up with that law

The banks involved are the biggest and best ran in the country, will this decision weaken the banks, will their shares drop, will it reduce public confidence, will this decision do more harm than good?, I think it will. Is there a systemic plan to weaken these banks,

coolG:

Did you just justify the bank tenure limit by asking why the limited tenure in political office? That's where the fundamental problem lies in your assessment. The principle of tenure limit in democratic government (usually at presidential and gubernatorial positions) is derived from equality under the law with the purpose being to stop any person at that position from oppressing the populace and/or level the playing ground with incumbents not participating. If you actually believed that comparison you made then there's a significant problem with the way both of us understand business as it is being practiced worldwide and in Nigeria till this week. You said "Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance". That is just completely false. Evidences do not support that statement. You will be hard pressed to see a prescribed tenure limit in the same industry in most countries of the world.
I don't understand what you mean by cabals they have in US running amok. That is a sweeping statement rooted in fiction.

Yes I did make a comparison to political office, as in the same vein that you want a fail safe mechanism to prevent incumbent political office holders manipulating the electoral process to perma-fix himself despite acting against the wishes of the people, you also do not want an individual to entrench himself in the office of a CEO of a bank while his actions are inimical to the depositor funds. If there were no public funds involved, then we can let the shareholders deal with the issue.
Tenure limit ensures a change in personnel. A lack of it will result in someone who is the majority shareholder being in office permanently, irrespective of him being biased to the shareholders (himself ) at the expense of depositors.

Pre-consolidation, I might have been on the other side, but the with limited number of banks we now have, steps need to taken to safe guard things. Prevention is better than cure.

One should be cautious when make relative comparison to foreign nations, as there is a reason we are struggling. The US academia operates a tenure track system, I would not approve of such for Nigerian lectures. The US senator are not tenure limited; I will not approve of such for Nigeria. 

I was only responding specifically to your question. Remember you asked if there's any northerner in the interim management of those banks. If you said in the hands of northerners, then the answer is No but the banks have not been sold yet. Besides even if the banks are sold to northerners i do not have complaints as long as the banks are appropriately valued. If you research well, you will discover that most CEOs do not consider banks ran by the current northern elites as competition. There's a reason for that.  I couldn't care less what people say about Sanusi, i am concerned about his plans, policies and actions to engineer development and growth in the country.   

My question was 'How many are northerners?' and not ' If any were northerners' The question was posed to someone who accused Sanusi of social engineering, and was expecting an answer in support of this.

Check limit and narration on interbank transfer will make for a transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices? how? Where did it contribute to the sacked CEOs self-enrichment? What the check limit policy is doing is to force the banks to use electronic clearing system of CBN or Nigeria Interbank more. The CBN electonic system was implemented by previous CBN chief to enhance the bank's efficiency and reduce operational risk. Information disclosure in financial statements was neither conceived nor instituted by the current CBN chief. The previous CBN chief instituted full disclosure and common year policy and gave the banks a deadline to comply. It is ironic that Intercontinental complied with information disclosure policy as at April 30, 2009 yet the ex-thief (sorry, ex-CEO) was still busy pilfering. Contrary to your observation, most policies were enforced but the frauds discovered in all these banks are what auditors call management override. If you ask around you will soon discover it is the most difficult fraud to identify. It took actual physical examination by a fairly honest CBN auditors and examiners to smoke the crooks. The problem has always been that the CBN auditors and examiners collude with the banks. For whatever reason they did their work last year.

Check limit and narration on interbank transfer will make for a transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices because there will be  less money in limbo, thereby increasing transparency.
You can check the CBN circulars for details on the policy changes that Sanusi has made.
A policy is not enforced if the frauds 'discovered' were not acted upon. The police witnessing a crime does not constitute the enforcement of the law.

I did not state that as a fact. I said "I believe" and my reason is simple. It has no correlation to the problem at hand. 6 of the 8 CEO's removed had stayed less than 10 years with as many as 3 staying less than 5 years. More importantly, there is no correlation to the concept of corporate governance, which at its most basic definition is a way to conduct business with integrity as articulated by the board of directors and shareholders of a business as long as it is within the confines of the regulations of the industry. You can see why i said i do not believe it is illegal but rather a tool to achieve a purpose and does not belong in corporate governance.

Your believe is what you have decided is true (or is it not?)

If you are wondering how Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect Sanusi, then you might want to consider that one of the oldest motivation to commit murder is jealousy. In this case, professional jealousy. It might look petty but it has been proven to be a powerful incentive. I am just answering your question.  Grin

Professional jealousy? that would be shocking as Sanusi was MD of one of the largest banks and is currently the CBN governor. The lesser envies the greater. Still one cannot know whats in people's hearts.

Per your last sentence:
You keep saying something that is fundamentally not true.  Banks are not public utility company. Banks are private sector business. People who put their money to start a business decide who should run their business and when the person should run their business. This is not a government post. The shareholders does not implement federal character in formation and running of their business. They do not pay their CEOs from a mandatory citizen tax. This is not national cake. It is not an equal participation business rather an equal opportunity employer. I clearly appreciate the role of CBN in regulating the sector, safeguarding depositors fund and the excesses of the CEOs but this policy is not one of them.
The notion of holding a life sway on public funds is a misconception.

Banks are not public utilities, nor are they your typical private institution. The shareholders cannot be left to act to protect their own interest at the expense of the depositors. The fact that the CBN ratifies executive appointment is evidence of this. This is simply an extension of that function.
I would rather we have a fixed tenure than the CBN vetoing or sacking executives on a case by case basis. This policy will not be a problem for those with diffused shareholders like FBN or UBA as they already have tenure limits. It is those banks that have an individual majority shareholder that will be affected more, and like I said I dont approve of a 'one-man' business being licensed to receive public funds either from the government or directly from depositors.

I do think you understand that policies and guidelines are instruments of supervision. If you drill down to the procedures of the supervision, you have returns rendering, reviews and examination (audits). So, splitting the function will make no sense.

I have heard both sides of the argument, and while some countries have unified entities, others (like the UK) have them split up. We have had the unified approach for a while with little to no success, and I feel we might do better. I would have liked to see what we could achieve with a Soludo+Sanusi, with one making the wholistic plans, while the other carries out the supervision and enforcement.

You think the bank consolidation is a waste? I only know few people who think the same. It is ironic that you think the previous CBN chief did nothing but when pressed for any change in policy that would have stopped the self-enrichment of the sacked CEOs, you extolled mostly policies that was conceived and instituted by him even though those policies were specifically to improve efficiency and reduce operational risk (and does not lend itself to issue at hand)

The consolidation of banks was a consequence of increased capitalization requirement. Soludo was not the first to increase bank capitalization nor will he be the last.
The problem of the Nigerian banking sector is primarily two fold: poor corporate governance, and, operating in a dead economy. Increased capitalization aims to make more money available for loans, but the Nigerian banks were not suffering from a lack of capital. Rather the problem was that the industry was not productive such that the banks were not guaranteed good returns on the loans. You have to ask yourself, does a big bank make a big economy, or a big economy makes a big bank. In the right economic environment, market forces would have grown the banks capital base, as the likes of FBN were then above the requirement and didn't need any mergers to meet the requirements. The size of a bank does no imply profitability else how do you explain all the big bank in the US that were distressed while several smaller ones were healthy. All we have done is put our eggs in a few baskets and now cannot afford to let them fail. Even the US is now seeking to limit the size of banks so that they will not be held to ransom again in the future.

If you still believe that it was not muslim fanatics that piloted the plane into those towers, then i must admit i underestimated you.

My point wasn't about the religious affiliations of the pilot, but simply that you cannot go from practicing on a 727 low level simulator to pulling the aerial stunts they reportedly carried out.

vislabraye:


The banks are plc, and the largest shareholdres are the public and therefore, the CEOs and/or Managers should be rotatted. Thats what's normally done.

Agreed CEOs are rotatted and their tenures can be pegged;normally BUT NOT BY THE CBN,it's purely a shareholders' decision,but because Nigeria is a lawless country,Sanusi can pull stunts like these and get away with it,what makes the situation unfortunate is that the affacted CEOs have soiled hands and are afraid that should they challenge the decision in court or even breathe an atom of dissent in the media(did you see Elumelu's interview in Thisday yesterday,dude was sounding like Sanusi's PR man),then vintage vindictive Sanusi will open their rofo rofo can of worms

@clintwine
Thats a lengthy piece! But its all spot on. We are an interesting study! Our country, that is!

@ Chuckvyl & Naijaking1
Well,it never stops to amaze me the way Nigerians think.I think our problem could be traced to poverty and poor education.Nigerians attach sentiments to most political and financial issues.Don't get offended guys.But i shall explain.Some people here are comparing Bank CEOs to politicians in terms of 'sitting tight'.What a shame.
Well,banks are private companies guys.It is a privately owned company hence CEOs should be determined by shareholders' votes.As a matter of fact,i expect the banks to challenge this in court.This is dictatorial in nature.CBN should not dictate to the shareholders how long they intend to keep a CEO.As a private company,Zenith bank is similar to Dangote Group PLC.Most of those guys who are CEOs are the majority shareholders in the banks.Removing them with this new CBN regulation is similar to asking Dangote to quit as Chairman of Dangote Group.Because both of them are private companies and not government run companies.Reason this critically before you comment.This new CBN law is a shame.It means that Jim Ovia cannot be appointed as CEO of another bank(by shareholders' vote) just because he has served 10 years at Zenith.Ovia has lots of experience in the banking industry.In developed countries people like him are well sought after.A bank that needs his experience should be free to appoint anybody as their CEO.You must not have been a staff of a bank to be appointed as CEO guys.The current CEO of Citi Group was never a staff of Citi Group.This is a draconian law from CBN.There is nothing ethically wrong with a family run bank.We need sound bank policies and regulation Sanusi.This will have no positive effect on the banking industry.

Do u guys have financial knowledge? Do you know what it's meant by the term "Financial Institutions" in a country. I guess u do not understand that term. @ Chvckvyl, ur analogy doesnt make a single sense. Every populace of country has, directly or indirectly, a unit of currency with any finanacial institutions operating in that country. Please, go and study some foundamental knowledge of finance & Understanding Financial Institutions in Nigeria. That will help you lots. Why you not canvassing that only Adenuga & his family sholud be banking with Equitorial Trust Bank (ETB)? I guess u'r a family member of Ibru. Now I understand.

Does this mean more loss of jobs within and around the said banks? If this would cause some staff their jobs then i see no point in Sanusi's ill move