The controversy over the financial obligations inherited by the Anambra State Government has taken a fresh turn, with former governor Peter Obi disputing the basis for attributing about N1274 billion in outstanding external loans to his administration.
Obi said the figure being presented by the state government failed to distinguish between facilities approved for development programmes, amounts actually drawn and the balances outstanding at different periods
He made the clarification while appearing on Arise TV, where he maintained that he neither approached a financial institution to borrow money nor issued a bond on behalf of Anambra during his eight years in office
His comments followed claims by the Anambra Government that eight external financing facilities associated with projects during his tenure had an original value of $12377 million, with $92.35 million, equivalent to about N127.4 billion, outstanding as of June 30, 2026.
The state government has said the facilities continue to be serviced from public funds
Obi, however, questioned the description of the entire contracted value as debt he left behind
According to the former governor, the facilities were predominantly development programmes involving institutions such as the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, negotiated through arrangements involving the Federal Government and participating states
He cited the State Education Programme Investment Project as an example, saying Anambra was selected alongside Ekiti and Bauchi for concessionary multilateral support because of their performance in education
“There’s a difference between I went to the bank to borrow money, then the Federal Government sees, ‘Oh, this state is doing well in education’ They selected Anambra, Ekiti, and Bauchi and said, ‘These three states are doing well. Why don’t we give them a concessionary multilateral support to help them?’” Obi said.
He stressed that the arrangement was different from obtaining a conventional commercial loan directly from a bank
According to him, the drawdown on some of the facilities occurred after he had left office in March 2014 He therefore argued that the timing of each drawdown should be established before responsibility for the resulting obligations is assigned.
Obi also challenged the treatment of an approved but undrawn facility as money already borrowed and spent by a government
“Even if I had gone to a bank and borrowed money—but I did not spend the money, you cannot call it debt I left,” he said
He illustrated his argument with a hypothetical N10 billion facility, saying a government that received approval for N10 billion but drew only N500 million could not properly be described as owing the entire N10 billion
“That’s why I said it is not proper public sector accounting,” he added
Obi further pointed to what he described as historical records of the Debt Management Office (DMO), arguing that the figures required reconciliation before the current balance could be traced entirely to his administration
He said Anambra’s external debt was about $18 million when he assumed office in March 2006 and about $30 million when he left in March 2014, according to DMO records he cited
He questioned how the $12377 million figure now being associated with his tenure could be presented as the debt he left behind, particularly when the state’s cited outstanding balance was calculated more than 12 years after he left office.
Obi also invoked the former DMO Director-General, Abraham Nwankwo, as further evidence of his borrowing record
He said Nwankwo, who headed the agency for 10 years, invited him to chair his send-off ceremony and publicly stated that Obi was the only governor who had not visited his office to seek approval for a loan
Beyond the external financing dispute, Obi maintained that his administration left no outstanding salaries, gratuities or pensions due from the state government at the point of handover
“On the day I left office, the government of Anambra State, which I headed, was not owing any salary, gratuity, or pension to those scheduled to be paid by the state government,” he said
He added that no contractor or supplier whose work had been executed, certified and verified was owed by the state when he left office
The Anambra Government, however, has disputed that account, saying it inherited obligations that extended beyond external loans to include salary, pension and gratuity arrears
The state government has also questioned Obi’s earlier claim concerning funds left in an ecological account
The competing accounts have resulted in a continuing public exchange over Anambra’s debt profile and the financial legacy of Obi’s administration
While the Anambra Government points to facilities contracted during his tenure and balances that are still being serviced, Obi argues that the timing, drawdowns and nature of each facility must first be established before the obligations can be attributed to his administration
The latest exchange is part of a broader disagreement over the financial record and legacy of Obi’s eight-year administration in Anambra
Obi governed the state from 2006 to 2013, after assuming office following the resolution of a prolonged political dispute that had earlier disrupted the state’s transition of power
His tenure was subsequently succeeded by that of Willie Obiano, who served from 2014 to 2022 before Soludo emerged as governor
For much of the period after leaving office, Obi publicly presented his stewardship of Anambra as an example of fiscal discipline, savings and investment in human development His claims about the state’s finances have consequently remained part of his broader public record, particularly since his entry into national politics.
The financial argument has acquired renewed political significance since Obi became a major opposition figure and presidential candidate, with his record in Anambra repeatedly featuring in national debates over his economic and governance positions
Soludo, himself an economist and former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, has approached the matter from a different standpoint since taking office in March 2022
His administration has periodically raised questions about the liabilities and financial commitments inherited from previous governments while presenting its own efforts as part of a broader attempt to reposition the state’s finances