Headlines
Kano: Sanusi didn’t behave as a traditional ruler – Ganduje
![Kano Sanusi didn’t behave as a traditional ruler – Ganduje](https://pressinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Kano-Sanusi-didnt-behave-as-a-traditional-ruler-–-Ganduje.jpeg)
Governor Abdullahi Ganduje of Kano State has explained that he had a big problem with the former Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi, because he could not change his mode of life from social critic to an institution.
Ganduje claimed that Sanusi, who was dethroned in March 2020 by the Kano government, didn’t watch his tongue and was destroying the institution during his regime as Emir of the State.
According to him, when the former CBN governor became the Emir of Kano in June 2014, he refused to change his stature to that of a traditional ruler.
“The real story was that the deposed emir of Kano [Muhammad Sanusi] did not understand the responsibilities of a traditional ruler especially for a strong institution like that of Kano,” Ganduje said on Politics Today, a Channels Television programme on Friday.
“The Emir of Kano was a social critic, a celebrated social critic and there was nothing wrong with that because he is an educated person; there is freedom of speech.
“He made a statement that instead of providing water in the state, we were building a house in Abuja – the governor’s lodge in Asokoro.
“I remember my governor said either the bank sacks him or we should withdraw our accounts from the bank and the bank did not sack him, so we withdrew N969m from that bank. That was the work of a social critic.
“He is an economist, but he failed to understand (that) in economics, you have to inherit assets and liabilities.
“But he only inherited the assets of a traditional institution by giving orders, staying in a mansion, dressing gorgeously, (and) being addressed as a king, but (not) the liability of that institution – you have to watch your words. You have to watch your tongue, and he didn’t do that.
“That was the problem. That was the biggest problem; that he could not change his mode of life from social critic to an institution.
“As of now, that institution does not afford a social critic of his style. With the problem in the society, he was destroying the institution. That was why I had a problem with him; he was destroying the institution,” he added.