Ibime:

A lot of people misunderstand the merits of Islamic banking.

Islamic banking completely forbids structured products i.e derivatives, futures, options, credit default swaps,  etc. . . . anything that is structured around an underlying asset is haraam. . . . the only thing which is tradeable is the actual asset.

This evidently curtails artificial demand - eg the artificial demand for houses that led to the current economic crisis. Islamic banks always share the risk with their customers. ie they part-own the product until the customer pays it off. This shared risk nuances the bubble effect of speculation.
If Islamic banking was the world standard, it is not hard to argue that all the downturns, recessions and depressions that we have experienced in the world in the last 80 years would have been limited.

Go and study any economic crisis - from 1929 till date - they are always caused by speculative bubbles bursting - mortgages, savings and loans crisis, CDS crisis, tech bubble etc etc etc. . . . . they are always caused by the bottom dropping out of structured product markets.

False Ibime, the demands for houses were real. What led to the credit situation was over-exposure of banks to "non-performing" loans. Many people defaulted on their loan repayments, banks stopped lending to other banks and withheld credit facilities, people stopped getting loans to buy properties, housing values plunged because there were more sellers than buyers because there were no loans, negative equities set into loan securities (properties), people just dey run helter skelter, downward spin , defaults on unsecured loans spiralled out of control and bang ------ recession.

If properties are part owned by Islamic banking following financed purchase, I can assure you that western banks have the first charge on your property where you have secured a loan (mortgage or other) with your property. The problem with the recession was that they could not even sell their securities, because potential buyers could not get finances to purchase (vicious cycle right ?). This made several government to come up with the toxic asset scheme and also to guarantee inter bank loans.

Fact of life: Those that take the most risks are exposed to the most rapid gains or downfall.

i can't believe all tghese things but let's wait and see the next step

GEW:

you are right. you told the truth.   at least he came out with what he has been asked to deliver.

FACE:

False Ibime, the demands for houses were real. What led to the credit situation was over-exposure of banks to "non-performing" loans. Many people defaulted on their loan repayments, banks stopped lending to other banks and withheld credit facilities, people stopped getting loans to buy properties, housing values plunged because there were more sellers than buyers because there were no loans, negative equities set into loan securities (properties), people just dey run helter skelter, downward spin , defaults on unsecured loans spiralled out of control and bang ------ recession.

Rubbish. . . . demand for houses was artificial. . . . created by unscrupulous lenders who gave mortgages to sub-prime clients knowing that they did not have the capacity to pay them back. . . . these companies then bunched all these mortgages into packages and sold them on to banks as structured products. . . . banks then took CDS positions on these "mortgage packages", and when the underlying failed to pay their mortgages, the system came crumbling. Banks started suspecting each other of hiding faulty loan and CDS defaults in their books and refused to lend to each other, hence the credit crunch.

In summation, under Islamic banking, a lender who offers a subprime mortgage to a client can never sell it on to a bank as it is haraam for a bank to trade anything other than the actual asset ie the lender would never offer the subprime mortgage in the first place cos there would be no one to buy the mortgage from them. Hence artificial demand was created by unscrupulous lenders.

Secondly, the CDS's which caused the financial crisis are forbidden under Islamic banking hence there would have been no bubble to burst.

In other words, you are chatting a bunch of bull.

What Sanusi is doing is systematically killing the economy.

He is injecting lethal doses of bad policies into the economy. I pray that God would sustain what is left of the economy and the remaining 2 years of the current administration would run out very fast.

FACE:

The part in bold is very misleading Jarus. Of course, Islamic banking system must be profitable and must have its benefits for it to have the success attributed to it. However, you can bring those benefits to the fore without latching onto publicity stunt (business strategy/deceit) by the bank you mentioned designed to maximise their income.

Islamic banking forbids quite a lot of stuff practiced by western banking, so do you not see the irony in Islamic units of western banks? If for instance HSBC group declare a profit and dividend for the year, will they exclude the profit made through their Islamic banking unit ? Will the profit made therefrom be forbidden from further investments by the group as they deem fit ? Will they refuse to pay dividends to shareholders on the profit made by a business they funded through their shares?

The answer to those questions will expose the business deceit/hypocrisy or sincerity of those institutions. It is like buying petrol from Texaco and Shell into the same tank; at what point in your journey do you determine which petrol is responsible for keeping your car in motion ?

Just like you, I believe that the introduction of Islamic bank will not be a prelude to Islamising the country, however, public funds should not be used to establish such bank regardless of the (academic) benefits.

Misleading again. The banks are merely seeking to extend their business reach, which is what capitalists do. They capitalise on things and do not discriminate the source of money, as far as is permissible in existing laws. Approve the use of cocaine today and see how many of them will rush to finance cocaine factories. If they were planning to leave one in favour of the other, then you would have a solid point, but they are just expanding their territories.

If western banking was that bad, you will not see hard core Arab (Muslim) billionaires investing billions into western banks.

I believe that both systems can exist side by side or as a fussion, as chosen by the owners (not CBN).

The way forward is to educate skeptical Nigerians (and rightly skeptical too) on the benefits of Islamic banking, let private investors put their stake down in the market and let Mr A, B and C decide what's good for their finances.

A reasonable and well articulated input, even though it departs slightly from my views in one or two areas.

And on the way forward you proffered, do you think Nigerians are ready to be educated? For example, Ibime is trying to educate some folk here about Islamic banking but they are already with the mindset that it can never bring any advantage to the economy. I wonder how such sealed mind can be educated.

Ibime:

Rubbish. . . . demand for houses was artificial. . . . created by unscrupulous lenders who gave mortgages to sub-prime clients knowing that they did not have the capacity to pay them back. . . . these companies then bunched all these mortgages into packages and sold them on to banks as structured products. . . . banks then took CDS positions on these "mortgage packages" and when the underlying failed to pay their mortgages, the system came crumbling. Banks started suspecting each other of hiding faulty loan and CDS defaults in their books and refused to lend to each other, hence the credit crunch.

In summation, under Islamic banking, a lender who offers a subprime mortgage to a client can never sell it on to a bank as it is haraam for a bank to trade anything other than the actual asset ie the lender would never offer the subprime mortgage in the first place cos there would be no one to buy the mortgage from them. Hence artificial demand was created by unscrupulous lenders.

Secondly, the CDS's which caused the financial crisis are forbidden under Islamic banking hence there would have been no bubble to burst.

In other words, you are chatting a bunch of bull.

You are mistaken the inability to pay with demand. Now money lending is based on credit rating of an individual. People need houses all the time and will try to get on the property ladder by all means.

The fact that they may not be able to meet their obligation to pay does not take away the fact that they need a house of their own and that is where common sense should prevail in order to avoid over exposure to high risk customers.

Do you even know what subprime means ? There is always an acceptable (gambleable)risk level based on credit profile and when you lend to people with low credit rating you are going the subprime way. Don't mistake subprime lenders with mortgage brokers as there is a clear difference.

Now financial institutions borrow from each other and subprime lenders like Gmax usually have very high interest rates to "cover" their risk. The irony of subprime lending is the charging of high interest rates to those predetermined as not likely to meet their loan obligations. These debtors defaulted on their loans as there were likely to and in turn the subprime lenders defaulted on their obligation to their lenders. Then the tumble.

When you take a loan from a subprime lender, you own them directly and not that bull shit  of supposedly owing another bank whom the loan was "packaged" for. Banks have their own underwriters !

The main banks have their  rules and underwriters that take a final decision on loan applications while SP lenders have their rules which are not as stringent.

For instance, Financial institutions like Gmax would accept a self assessment from you (prepared by an accountant) as enough evidence of income and ability to pay, while the major banks would require your tax returns and banking details in addition to that.

Now you have really turned economics on its head. Unscrupulous lenders did not create artificial demand but they were over exposed to risk caused by their inability to say no to borrowers with poor credit rating. In other words their exposure to high risk led to high default which crashed the system.

You can juxtapose this statement " Hence artificial demand was created by unscrupulous lenders" with this " Artificial demand for banana was caused because FACE came with a trailer load of good and bad bananas to the banana market"

Now if you say that the ease at which loans were given had a direct effect on the mortgage market, I will gladly accept, but that ease cannot be attributed solely to the SP lenders as many core lenders also exposed themselves in their ratio of income:mortgage loans and LTV loans.

FACE:

You are mistaken the inability to pay with demand.

No need to read through your long post.

The content quoted already disqualifies your argument.

Inability to pay IS lack of demand.

Demand and Need are not interchangeable terms as you argue.

Hence the simple supply-demand curve which you learn in Principles of Economics. Price-elasticity of demand states that when prices drop, demand increases for a normal good. Since Housing is a normal good, your argument disqualifies itself.

If demand increases when prices drop, that means more people can now afford it. If the price is too high (as house prices are/were), then demand drops. Since unscrupulous lenders allowed subprime clients to buy something they could not truly afford, artificial demand was created.

We would all like to own private jets. That doesnt mean demand for private jets is 100% of the Worlds population. Only those that can afford it are qualified as contributing to "demand".

Hence, my statement stands that "Under Islamic banking, the artificial demand which led to the credit crunch would have been averted".


You are also wrong in stating this:

FACE:

When you take a loan from a subprime lender, you own them directly and not that bull shit of supposedly owing another bank whom the loan was "packaged" for. Banks have their own underwriters !

No one is concerned who you owe or do not owe. Mortgage securitisation (ie packaging of home loans into pools to sell to other investors) was widely proliferated. Since lenders could securitise mortgages and sell them on to banks etc, their primary concern was not the ability of the client to pay the mortgage. Their primary concern was selling off the securities and making their bucks. All these would not happen under Islamic banking, or dare I say, common-sense banking.

There's nothing wrong with islamic banking and any nation could practice multiple banking systems if  it wants. But they shouldn't be resposible for setting up and running these banks. Islamic or not !
Whichever thrives and succeeds will be the dominant banking system. This should be based on natural market forces.
There nothing wrong with Islamic banking as far as im concerned. But I doubt its success in Nigeria. Because the area where this form of banking will be attracrtive to, have nothing to help any form of banking thrive.
And I dont see many muslims in Nigeria coming foward  to set it up. This was eveident during the consolidation exercise.
But anyone thinks that the Banks should be set up and ran/ supported by CBN/Government, as (I may be wrong I once heard that these banks dont make profits ) then you need to have you head checked !
I now understand why people in the south might be apprehensive about some policies.
People should be allowed to do whatever they want as far as it does not affect others and it doesn't smirk of undue advantage at the expense of others.
Who cares about islamic Banking !
Where was  Islamic Banking when the Anglo-Saxon system dominated world banking systems including in Islamic countries!

Jarus:

A reasonable and well articulated input, even though it departs slightly from my views in one or two areas.

And on the way forward you proffered, do you think Nigerians are ready to be educated? For example, Ibime is trying to educate some folk here about Islamic banking but they are already with the mindset that it can never bring any advantage to the economy. I wonder how such sealed mind can be educated.

Jarus, I know that many Nigerians and indeed many humans have fixed mindset and view almost anything on earth with a lot of skepticism. However, we cannot force them to change their views.

If such people people go to a bus station and refuse to enter the bus named "I dey leave now" because of their mindset. When "I dey leave now" leaves before their doubtful eyes, no one will tell them to enter the bus "any time I leave make you take am"

Let the banks hit the ground running and people will decide whether to hop on board. The CBN can grant licenses to willing investors and create the enabling environment for the institution to florish, while putting down rules to protect the public and the rest will sort out itself.

Ibime:

No need to read through your long post.

The content quoted already disqualifies your argument.

Inability to pay IS lack of demand.

Demand and Need are not interchangeable terms as you argue.

Hence the simple supply-demand curve which you learn in Principles of Economics. Price-elasticity of demand states that when prices drop, demand increases for a normal good. Since Housing is a normal good, your argument disqualifies itself.

If demand increases when prices drop, that means more people can now afford it. If the price is too high (as house prices are/were), then demand drops. Since unscrupulous lenders allowed subprime clients to buy something they could not truly afford, artificial demand was created.

We would all like to own private jets. That doesnt mean demand for private jets is 100% of the Worlds population. Only those that can afford it are qualified as contributing to "demand".

Hence, my statement stands that "Under Islamic banking, the artificial demand which led to the credit crunch would have been averted".

No point arguing with you. Go and learn what subprime lending is before we continue this arguement. If you said that over exposure would be averted/limited under Islamic banking, maybe you would have a point.

Text book economist, prices just dont rise and fall in order to fit into your lala land curve.

Availability of easy loans led to high demand of housing properties which led to astronomical rise in property prices.

The fall in property prices was as a result of the scarcity of loans to potential buyers , especially first time buyers who are the main engine of the property market. This led to few people chasing after available properties.

Even those who could afford loans were unable to obtain loans due to to no funds for loans.

Even though now is the cheapest time to obtain loans, lenders are still not lending money to people. Now the trend is changing as there are now fewer houses in the markets with slightly revived interest from buyers and approval of more morgages. Trust me I should know about this.

FACE:

No point arguing with you. Go and learn what subprime lending is before we continue this arguement. If you said that over exposure would be averted/limited under Islamic banking, maybe you would have a point.

Text book economist, prices just dont rise and fall in order to fit into your lala land curve.

Availability of easy loans led to high demand of housing properties which led to astronomical rise in property prices.

The fall in property prices was as a result of the scarcity of loans to potential buyers , especially first time buyers who are the main engine of the property market. This led to few people chasing after available properties.

Even those who could afford loans were unable to obtain loans due to to no funds for loans.

Even though now is the cheapest time to obtain loans, lenders are still not lending money to people. Now the trend is changing as there are now fewer houses in the markets with slightly revived interest from buyers and approval of more morgages. Trust me I should know about this.

To be honest, after revealing your sciolism and proving yourself to know nothing of what you speak of, I can only indulge your argument further out of sheer magnanimity. As a result of me pointing out your ineptitude in basic principles of economics, you have chosen to use an abrasive method of communication to get your point across.

Your post just sounds like a covert retreat on your part.

The bolded is what I've been saying all along.

No need to argue with me, cos you came back full circle to agree with me.

In your own words:

"Availability of easy loans led to high demand of housing properties which led to astronomical rise in property prices."

If you agree that the demand was high, then the only question left to ask to end this debate is whether the high demand was artificial or not.

You evidently believe it wasnt artificial.  I say it is. The high level of default proves it is.

Your only recourse is to argue that it isnt artificial because credit ratings allow it. Again, a systemic flaw which would be nuanced by Islamic banking.

With reference to our debate, the only question to ask would be: Would these "easy loans" be available under Islamic banking?

Second argument is the securitisation of mortgages argument which you fall flat on and have refused to address. Again, another practice discouraged by Islamic banking.

the moment we in favour of a thing we see everything good about it but the moment we are against it we see good and called it bad.islamic banking is a perfect solution all our economic and social political life.

Ibime:

To be honest, after revealing your sciolism and proving yourself to know nothing of what you speak of, I can only indulge your argument further out of sheer magnanimity. As a result of me pointing out your ineptitude in basic principles of economics, you have chosen to use an abrasive method of communication to get your point across.

Your post just sounds like a covert retreat on your part.

The bolded is what I've been saying all along.

No need to argue with me, cos you came back full circle to agree with me.

In your own words:

"Availability of easy loans led to high demand of housing properties which led to astronomical rise in property prices."

If you agree that the demand was high, then the only question left to ask to end this debate is whether the high demand was artificial or not.

You evidently believe it wasnt artificial.  I say it is. The high level of default proves it is.

Your only recourse is to argue that it isnt artificial because credit ratings allow it. Again, a systemic flaw which would be nuanced by Islamic banking.

With reference to our debate, the only question to ask would be: Would these "easy loans" be available under Islamic banking?

Second argument is the securitisation of mortgages argument which you fall flat on and have refused to address. Again, another practice discouraged by Islamic banking.

Your ignorance and ineptitude on the subject in which you seek to debate on will not let you realise that easy loans were not only given by subprime lenders but by main stream lenders as well. Easy means lowered criteria on this occasion like LTV and income to loan ration.

Demand was always there and approval rate was high. In effect properties were in shorter supply than demand from buyers until the downturn.

You speak as a novice and I talk as someone on the ground and with first hand experience. I can pick a novice from a mile when I see one.

Do you know what ? We can only go round in cycles and I won't be responding to further posts from you on this regard. I have been in the thick of this since 2002 and have witnessed and have been involved with the rises and falls and I am happy with my opinion,just as I am sure that you are happy with yours.

Regards.

Before Soludo, Now Lamido, only God knows who will come next.

FACE:

Your ignorance and ineptitude on the subject in which you seek to debate on will not let you realise that easy loans were not only given by subprime lenders but by main stream lenders as well. Easy means lowered criteria on this occasion like LTV and income to loan ration.

You are the only one seeking to classify lenders into "subprime" and "mainstream". I am not concerned with that definition and it has nothing to do with my argument.

The main crux of my argument remains that these easy loans (leading to artificial demand) would not be available under Islamic banking.

FACE:

You speak as a novice and I talk as someone on the ground and with first hand experience. I can pick a novice from a mile when I see one.

Do you know what ? We can only go round in cycles and I won't be responding to further posts from you on this regard. I have been in the thick of this since 2002 and have witnessed and have been involved with the rises and falls and I am happy with my opinion,just as I am sure that you are happy with yours.

Your years of experience as an estate agent/loan approval agent etc mean nothing to me. You still wouldnt know how what you do affects the economy anymore than the jeweller in the high street knows how the jewelry he sells affects the premium on gold options on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange. In other words, you are a macro-economic novice and that much is shown by your classification of "demand" as not depending on "ability to pay"

Why not just let banks interested offer Islamic banking if they chose? My fear is that this CBN governor will 'decree' that there shall be Islamic banking everywhere in Nigeria.

naijaking1:

Why not just let banks interested offer Islamic banking if they chose? My fear is that this CBN governor will[b] 'decree' [/b]that there shall be Islamic banking everywhere in Nigeria.

Now u are seeing the trojan horse being revealed gradually . . . .

I have said and i would repeat, islamic banking is just another step towards islamising nigeria. Islam is based on the claiming and domination of territories whether physical or virtual.

It would take bloodshed to uproot it from anywhere. Hence Nigerians need to make a choice of whether they want the bloodshed now (refusing to allow the nonsense to take root) or they want it later.

Soon there would be a law as regards another islamic purpose . . . . If there is no ulterior motive, there would not be need to involve federal government in it. FG is being involved because something illegal is about to be done and forced on other people via the use of the power of the gun . . .

Without any apologies, the name in itself is a piss off! Islamic banking? wtf??!

No2Atheism:

Now u are seeing the trojan horse being revealed gradually . . . .

I have said and i would repeat, islamic banking is just another step towards islamising nigeria. Islam is based on the claiming and domination of territories whether physical or virtual.

It would take bloodshed to uproot it from anywhere. Hence Nigerians need to make a choice of whether they want the bloodshed now (refusing to allow the nonsense to take root) or they want it later.

Soon there would be a law as regards another islamic purpose . . . . If there is no ulterior motive, there would not be need to involve federal government in it. FG is being involved because something illegal is about to be done and forced on other people via the use of the power of the gun . . .

Correct!

There are many manifestations of islamic banking and the type of implementation solely depends on the bank/organisation implementing it. The cardinal principle behind any form of islamic banking is not put the borrower in a situation where he is unable to pay back the loan.
Some islamic banks charge fixed fees on loans that reflect inflation and profit. They key difference between this and normal lending is that a borrower knows what he is going to pay back beforehand whereas interest rates are variable and change all the time. Any one will tell you that the global recession was caused by lending at variable interest rates which borrowers were unable to pay back.
Islamic banking is best explained with loans to businesses. If an islamic bank lends to a business it does not expect the business to pay back the money with interest whether the business has made a profit or not. Instead the bank takes an interest in the business and becomes something like a partner, if the company does well the profits are shared between the borrower and the bank and if the business looses money the losses are also shared.

I[b] really do not see
the fears of those against Islamic banking where the
operators of the present system have proved to be unreliable , not only
in Nigeria but elsewhere. Any system that ties the loan to the fortunes
and future of both parties will surely make each party alive to its responsibility.

To those prejudiced against anything Islam, i say good luck, after all Christian
values abhor usury and such vices and this is the system in place spiced and greased
by the usual Nigerian factors, greed, nepotism etc. That is why the interest rates
so high nd money can only be lent to money doublers and gamblers[/b]

No2Atheism:

Now u are seeing the trojan horse being revealed gradually . . . .

I have said and i would repeat, islamic banking is just another step towards islamising nigeria. Islam is based on the claiming and domination of territories whether physical or virtual.

It would take bloodshed to uproot it from anywhere. Hence Nigerians need to make a choice of whether they want the bloodshed now (refusing to allow the nonsense to take root) or they want it later.

Soon there would be a law as regards another islamic purpose . . . . If there is no ulterior motive, there would not be need to involve federal government in it. FG is being involved because something illegal is about to be done and forced on other people via the use of the power of the gun . . .

you are basically acting on someone elses fear

do you know that the draft for islamic banking options was done way before sanusi resumed?

Dis Guy:

you are basically acting on someone elses fear

do you know that the draft for islamic banking options was done way before sanusi resumed?

Under whose regime? And why is it now that Sanusi is thinking about bringing it into light?

The level of cynicism on this issue is so worrying. When it comes to islam people just stop using their God given intellectual ability to think and all sense of juidgement flies away. A CBN governor saying he will support the emergence of islamic banks becomes an issue He is not saying he will use public money , neither is he saying he will be the one to establish those banks as he his simply a regulator.

Take the word islamic out of it and call it ethical banking then people will say yes it is a good idea. I believe we should be able to live and think above some sentiments as we youths are the future of Nigeria.

I live in the UK and the population of muslims here in the UK is less than 10% of the country yet some of the big banks have islamic banking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5075998.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6483343.stm

HSBC - ammanah banking
Lloyds TSB - Islamic trust
Islamic bank of Britain

Non muslims bank with this banks as well as muslims based on ethics and interst issues. Nigerians havin an alternative to the mess in the conventional banking should not be an issue anyone will read islamising of Nigeria to or Nothern agenda. Lets be mature in arguements and think objectively. When Soludo was the governor of CBN people did not read christian agenda to every move he made so why do the opposite to Sanusi. double standard it is called

Peace

Lagosboy

Am sure if I add islam to military govt, u would instantly support it. Lets not allow people fool us by tying relion to their devious plans.

I dont have beefs with the individual called, Sanusi, infact i admire him. But i get uncomfortable when i see the workings of a devious plan with the sole intent of disrupting the little economic vibrancy this country has.

The whole economy of Southern Nigeria evolves round the banking industry. Telecomm coys are booming cause bankers are calling, clothing stores on the Island, Cinemas, private schools everything revolves round the banking industry.

Nothing kills banking faster than bad press. Banking is all about perception, so when the suppossed No. 1 banker in the indusrty starts labelling banks as sick i get really worried.

Xavier.:

I dont have beefs with the individual called, Sanusi, infact i admire him. But i get uncomfortable when i see the workings of a devious plan with the sole intent of disrupting the little economic vibrancy this country has.

The whole economy of Southern Nigeria evolves round the banking industry. Telecomm coys are booming cause bankers are calling, clothing stores on the Island, Cinemas, private schools everything revolves round the banking industry.

Nothing kills banking faster than bad press. Banking is all about perception, so when the suppossed No. 1 banker in the indusrty starts labelling banks as sick i get really worried.

what if they are really sick,

the general perception prior to this tsunami was that some banks are crooked institutions that never give loan to 'real' business men, they cook their figures year in year out, deduct cot,mot ppt from depositors account and introduce frivolous charges overnight, with all their Harvard oxbridge this and that they never respond to emails and customer complaints the way banks are supposed to. . . . .

Sick banks dont get unqualified opinions from trusted auditors.

Xavier.:

I dont have beefs with the individual called, Sanusi, infact i admire him. But i get uncomfortable when i see the workings of a devious plan with the sole intent of disrupting the little economic vibrancy this country has.

The whole economy of Southern Nigeria evolves round the banking industry. Telecomm coys are booming cause bankers are calling, clothing stores on the Island, Cinemas, private schools everything revolves round the banking industry.

And the economy of nothern Nigeria eveolves round what?

Nothing kills banking faster than bad press. Banking is all about perception, so when the suppossed No. 1 banker in the indusrty starts labelling banks as sick i get really worried.

Like someone said what if the banks are truly sick?

Did Sanusi lie about the non performing loans?
Did Sanusi and EFCC lie about Ibru granting loans to phoney companies?

We should remember that these banks might have their CEOs as southenrers but majority of the shares are owned by Nigerians(not southeners) and the banks are PLC's.

The stench in Nigeria Financial industry is alarming and shameful. From the early 90s we have been having distressed banks whwere millions of poor nigerians lose their hard earned income and here is man trying to prevent that and people are crying foul especially as he his from the North.

If this is the soundest solution Mr Sanusi could dream of at a critical time like this, then he may be lacking understanding of complex economic issues; and we may all be in trouble. Obviously, he may not be better than Abacha intellectually.

The whole thing is like Abacha coming back to life.