By George Ozalla
Former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi and presidential candidate of National Democratic Congress (NDC) for 2027 general election has challenged the state government’s presentation of about US$123.77 million in external development financing as debt he allegedly left behind when he handed over power in March 2014, arguing that the figures being presented do not distinguish between approved facilities, actual drawdowns and outstanding debt at the time of handover.
Obi, who broke his silence on the controversy following the death of his elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe, said he had remained quiet in recent days because he was mourning, but decided to respond to issues surrounding his administration’s financial record in Anambra State.
The former governor said the current controversy should not distract attention from what he described as the more pressing challenges facing Nigerians, stressing that his intervention was intended to clarify the financial records surrounding the eight development-financing facilities being linked to his administration.
The Anambra State Government had said in a statement by the Commissioner for Information and Value Orientation, Law Mefor, that eight external borrowing facilities contracted during Obi’s tenure had an original value of about US$123.77 million, with approximately US$92.35 million still outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The state said the outstanding balance was equivalent to about ₦127.37 billion.
Obi, however, said the description of the entire US$123.77 million as “loans left by Peter Obi” was incorrect because the facilities comprised multilateral development programmes negotiated by the Federal Government and made available to participating states for specific development purposes.
He said the relevant figures should be separated into three categories: the total amount approved for each multiyear programme, the amount actually drawn by Anambra State during his tenure, and the balance outstanding when he left office on March 17, 2014.
According to Obi, combining those different categories and describing the resulting US$123.77 million as debt handed over by his administration amounted to an incorrect application of public-sector accounting.
He specifically identified the facilities as primarily World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) development programmes, saying the Federal Government negotiated the arrangements while participating states accessed the funds through subsidiary agreements.
The former governor stressed that his position did not mean Anambra had no repayment responsibilities under the facilities. Rather, he said each facility should be examined according to its approval date, effectiveness, actual drawdown, repayment history and outstanding balance at the point he left office.
The central issue, according to Obi, is the difference between the original value of the facilities and the amount actually outstanding at the end of his administration.
He cited Debt Management Office records which, according to him, showed that Anambra’s external debt was approximately US$18 million when he assumed office in March 2006, about US$30 million in March 2014 when he left office, and approximately US$45.15 million as of December 31, 2014.
Obi therefore questioned how the state could describe US$123.77 million as debt inherited from his administration when, according to the DMO figures he cited, the recorded external debt stock stood at about US$30 million around the time of his departure.
The issue has also attracted independent commentary questioning whether the current US$92.35 million outstanding balance can properly be equated with the debt stock existing on March 17, 2014. Recent analyses have pointed out that an original loan commitment, actual disbursement and outstanding debt at a particular date are different financial measures and require reconciliation before they can be treated as the same figure.
Obi also rejected suggestions that he left behind unpaid salaries, gratuities, pensions or certified obligations to contractors and suppliers.
He recalled that at his farewell ceremony, the then Director-General of the Debt Management Office, Abraham Nwankwo, appointed him chairman and stated that, during his 10-year tenure at the DMO, Obi was the only state governor who had not approached him for a loan facility.
The former governor said that when he left office, the state had no unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions and did not owe contractors or suppliers who had completed work that had been verified and certified by the government.
He also brought into the debate the financial resources he said his administration left for the state.
Obi said he left more than US$150 million as the dollar component of his investment in Anambra State and that documents supporting the claim could be verified with the various banks involved.
According to him, had the funds remained untouched, they were expected to generate about US$10 million annually for the state.
He argued that even if the state government’s claim of a US$123 million debt were accepted, the annual income from those funds over the years could have been used to service and eventually clear the obligation.
Obi calculated that 13 years of such income would amount to about US$130 million. He further argued that retaining the principal, compound interest and additional income would have produced a significantly larger sum.
According to his calculation, the combined value would now be about US$335 million. He said if the state had used part of that money to repay the reported US$92.35 million outstanding balance, approximately US$242 million would still have been available for reinvestment, potentially generating about US$20 million annually.
The current dispute has therefore centred not only on whether development-financing facilities associated with projects initiated during the Obi administration existed, but also on how their original commitments, disbursements, repayments and balances at different dates should be attributed.
Available records cited by the Anambra State Government show that the eight facilities were connected to development projects covering areas including education, erosion and watershed management, health, malaria control, community development, agricultural development and value-chain initiatives. The state says the facilities had a combined original value of US$123.77 million and that US$92.35 million remained outstanding as of June 30, 2026.
Obi maintained that the figures should not be presented as though he personally borrowed US$123.77 million for the state or handed over that amount as outstanding debt in March 2014.
He also said he had no disagreement with Governor Chukwuma Soludo or any other governor and was not seeking to return to the office of governor.
The former governor appealed to governors to allow presidential candidates and other contestants to campaign freely in their respective states, saying voters should be allowed to decide who they want to elect.
Obi said his intention was not to engage in an extended exchange over his record as governor, adding that he would now concentrate on issues affecting Nigerians, which he identified as the reason for his presidential ambition.
“I will neither engage nor trade words with anyone regarding my tenure in Anambra State,” Obi said, maintaining that he left the state in a strong financial position.
The latest intervention comes amid a wider public dispute over the interpretation of Anambra’s historical debt records, with the state government maintaining that the eight facilities associated with the Obi administration remain financial obligations being serviced by the state, while Obi is challenging the description of their current outstanding balances as debt he left behind at handover.
