Peter Obi Rejects $123.77m Anambra Debt Claim, Challenges Soludo Government’s Figures

By Emmanuel Kwada

Former Anambra State Governor and National Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has rejected claims by the Anambra State Government that his administration left behind external loans worth $123.77 million, describing the figure as a misleading combination of different categories of development financing.

Obi, who broke his silence on the controversy on Friday, said he had remained quiet in recent days while mourning the death of his elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe.

The former governor said he was addressing the issue to clarify what he described as misconceptions surrounding Anambra State’s debt profile during and after his tenure.

The Anambra State Government had earlier released records alleging that eight external loan facilities associated with projects undertaken during Obi’s administration between 2007 and 2013 amounted to $123.77 million, with about $92.35 million still outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The state valued the outstanding balance at approximately N127.37 billion.

The government said the facilities covered projects in areas including malaria control, education, healthcare, erosion management, community development and agricultural development.

Obi, however, argued that the figures should not be presented as conventional loans personally obtained by him on behalf of Anambra State.

He said the facilities were primarily World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) development programmes negotiated by the Federal Government, with participating states accessing the funds through subsidiary arrangements.

According to him, the state government should distinguish between the total amount approved for a multiyear development programme, the amount actually drawn by Anambra during his tenure and the balance outstanding when he handed over power on March 17, 2014.

“The government has combined these distinct categories, added them together, and described the resulting US$123.77 million as ‘loans left by Peter Obi,’” he said, arguing that such treatment amounted to an incorrect application of public-sector accounting.

Obi also disputed the implication that he personally approached financial institutions to borrow money or issued bonds on behalf of Anambra State during his eight years in office.

He recalled that former Director-General of the Debt Management Office (DMO), Abraham Nwankwo, had publicly described him as the only state governor during Nwankwo’s 10-year tenure who had not approached him for a loan facility.

The former governor further maintained that when he left office, Anambra had no unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions, and no outstanding payments to contractors or suppliers whose completed work had been verified and certified by the government.

A major part of Obi’s response centred on historical debt figures attributed to the DMO.

He said DMO records showed Anambra’s external debt at approximately $18 million when he assumed office in March 2006, about $30 million when he left office in March 2014, and approximately $45.15 million as of December 31, 2014.

Obi therefore questioned how the state could now attribute $123.77 million in loans to his administration as debt left behind at the end of his tenure.

The former governor argued that the distinction between the amount originally approved for development programmes and the actual debt outstanding at handover was essential to understanding the issue.

The state government, however, has maintained that the eight facilities were external borrowings associated with projects approved during Obi’s administration and that successive administrations have continued to service the obligations.

The controversy has therefore centred not only on the existence of the facilities but also on how their contracted amounts, drawdowns, outstanding balances and responsibility for repayment should be classified.

Obi also said he left more than $150 million in the state as the dollar component of investments under his administration.

According to him, the funds, if left untouched, were expected to generate approximately $10 million annually for the state.

He argued that even if the $123 million debt figure cited by the state government were correct, the income from the funds could have been used over the years to significantly reduce or eliminate the outstanding obligations.

Obi further claimed that, with compound interest and additional income, the investments could have grown to approximately $335 million.

These figures are part of Obi’s account of the financial position he said he left behind, while the Anambra State Government has separately disputed aspects of his claims concerning the state’s savings and investments.

The former governor nevertheless maintained that he left Anambra in what he described as a strong financial position.

‘No Disagreement With Soludo’

Beyond the financial dispute, Obi said he had no disagreement with Governor Chukwuma Soludo or any other governor in the country.

He also stated that he was not seeking to return to the office of governor of any state, regardless of any future constitutional amendment.

Obi appealed to governors to allow presidential candidates and other political contenders to campaign freely in their respective states, regardless of their political affiliations.

He said voters should ultimately be allowed to decide who they want to govern them.

The former governor said he would not engage in a prolonged exchange of words over his tenure in Anambra, adding that his attention would remain focused on what he described as the challenges facing Nigerians.

Obi, who is seeking the presidency in 2027 on the NDC platform, said addressing the hardships confronting Nigerians remained central to his political ambition.

The debt controversy comes after the Anambra State Government publicly released its records of the external facilities and accused Obi of leaving outstanding financial obligations when he left office in 2014. Obi has rejected the characterisation and challenged the methodology used to arrive at the $123.77 million figure.