TheCable

Muiz Banire, former chairman of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), says he was disturbed after the news that he had been replaced at the corporation broke.

On Tuesday, President Muhammadu Buhari implemented the amended AMCON law by replacing Banire with Edward Adamu, deputy governor for corporate services at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

The amended law states that the chairman of the corporation must be from the apex bank.

In an article published by The Sun, Banire said he was in London when he received the report that a new chairman had been appointed at AMCON.

He said he got disturbed by the insinuations which made the rounds over the development.

“News about this development came to me while in London in the middle of a crash education programme,” Banire said.

“Interestingly, I was disturbed with complaints and murmurs by some people who read lots of insinuations into the development and were apparently in a mourning mood, as if disengagement from a political appointment was tantamount to bereavement.

“The grumbling from the supposed well-wishers underscores the problematic aspect of Nigerians as a people who see appointments into political offices as open sesame to riches and an opportunity for self-enrichment.

“Whereas, in saner climes, political offices are seen as opportunities to serve humanity, to the glory of God, in Nigeria, it is seen as an opportunity for self-enrichment.

“My days in AMCON as chairman were dominated by pressure I gladly entertained with all sense of responsibility in order to be able to serve my people.”

Banire added that people do not bother if political officials succeed in their duties, but they would rather see the appointment as an opportunity for self-enrichment.

“Once an appointee is relieved of his appointment, mournful glares compete on burrowed foreheads, languid expressions of personal losses dominate discussions among beneficiaries or intended beneficiaries of loot from a public office recently lost,” he said.

“Lots of motives, from ethnicity to religion, to personal scores and political intrigues are adduced as reasons why the appointor must have terminated the appointment or disengaged the public office holder. In my situation, messages of consolation and clear condemnation oozed from some mouths the moment it was announced that a new nomination had been made.

“It was a terrible distraction as I was struggling to imbibe as much as possible from the highly intellectually resourceful lecturer that was handling the on-going session. Calls came into my phone in torrents. Loads of messages poured into my phone with the constant flashes of light from the mobile gadget constituting a needless distraction until I had to switch it off.

“That you were considered worthy to serve the public in an elective or appointive office is an opportunity to give your best to the community to the benefit of the living and in preparation of a decent living for the yet unborn generations. It must not be regarded as a kingship on which someone should expect life tenure.

“In fact, as may be recalled, during the resistance to my nomination at inception, I clearly made this point that “I am not jobless and, therefore, not in search of any appointment.” I only owe the nation my service whenever called upon and I have the capacity to deliver.”