Former Anambra State Governor and presidential candidate of Nigeria Democratic Party (NDC), Peter Obi has challenged the state government’s description of $123.77 million in multilateral development financing as “debt owed by Peter Obi,” insisting that the figure represents different development facilities that must be properly distinguished from the amount actually drawn or outstanding when he left office.
Obi spoke against the backdrop of a renewed dispute between him and the Anambra State Government over the state’s financial position at the end of his administration in March 2014. The state government recently said eight external facilities linked to projects undertaken during Obi’s tenure had a combined contracted value of $123.77 million, with $92.35 million still outstanding as of June 30, 2026.
Obi, however, said he had remained silent over the controversy in recent days because he was mourning the death of his elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe.
He urged Nigerians to focus attention on what he described as the more pressing economic and social challenges confronting the country rather than political disagreements.
Obi also sought to dispel suggestions that his comments were motivated by a disagreement with Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo.
“I have no disagreement with my dear elder brother, Governor Soludo, or with any governor in Nigeria,” he said, adding that he was not seeking to become governor of any state again, even if the Constitution were amended to permit him to do so.
He appealed to governors across the country to allow presidential candidates and other political contenders to campaign freely in their states, regardless of their political affiliations.
According to him, the ultimate decision should be left to voters.
At the centre of the disagreement is the interpretation of several development-financing programmes involving Anambra State.
Obi insisted that, during his eight-year tenure as governor, he did not approach a financial institution to obtain a loan or issue a bond on behalf of the state.
He recalled that Abraham Nwankwo, then Director-General of the Debt Management Office, had described him at his farewell ceremony as the only governor during Nwankwo’s 10-year tenure who had not approached him for a loan facility.
Obi further maintained that he left office without unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions and without outstanding payments to contractors or suppliers whose completed work had been verified and certified by the government.
He argued that the World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development programmes being cited in the current controversy were fundamentally different from conventional commercial loans obtained directly by a state government.
According to him, the facilities were development-support programmes negotiated by the Federal Government for participating states, with repayment obligations spread over periods of about 25 to 30 years.
Obi said the Anambra government should therefore distinguish between the total amount approved for a multiyear programme, the amount actually drawn by the state during his administration and the balance outstanding when he handed over power on March 17, 2014.
He accused the state government of combining those separate categories and presenting the resulting $123.77 million as loans left behind by his administration.
“That is an incorrect application of public-sector accounting,” he argued.
The former governor acknowledged that Anambra had repayment responsibilities under some of the development programmes but maintained that each facility should be examined according to its approval, effectiveness, drawdown and repayment history.
Obi also questioned the relationship between the $123.77 million figure cited by the Anambra State Government and the external debt figures published by the Debt Management Office.
He said DMO records showed Anambra’s external debt at about $18 million when he assumed office in March 2006, approximately $30 million when he left office in March 2014, and about $45.15 million as of December 31, 2014.
Independent reports citing DMO records have also referenced the $45.15 million figure for Anambra’s external debt at the end of 2014.
Against that background, Obi questioned how the state could describe $123.77 million as debt he left behind when the DMO’s recorded external debt for Anambra was substantially lower at the time of his departure.
“The Anambra State Government must therefore clarify how a state whose recorded external debt was about US$30 million in March 2014 and US$45.15 million in December 2014 could supposedly have inherited US$123.77 million from Peter Obi,” he said.
The dispute has centred partly on the difference between the value of financing facilities associated with projects implemented in Anambra and the amount recorded as outstanding external debt at particular dates.
An analysis published amid the controversy noted that a loan commitment, a disbursement and an outstanding debt are not necessarily identical figures and that public-sector accounting requires the dates and classifications of the different amounts to be reconciled.
The Anambra State Government has maintained that the eight facilities were contracted during Obi’s administration and that subsequent governments have continued to service them. It said the facilities covered projects in areas including education, healthcare, malaria control, erosion management, agriculture and community development.
The government’s position is therefore that the facilities constitute financial obligations associated with projects undertaken during Obi’s tenure, while Obi’s argument is that describing the entire approved value of the programmes as debt he personally borrowed is inaccurate.
The distinction has become central to the political debate because both sides are relying on different descriptions of the state’s financial position at different points in time.
Obi’s latest statement does not deny that Anambra participated in externally financed development programmes or that the state had repayment obligations. Instead, he is challenging how the facilities have been classified and attributed to his administration.
The controversy therefore remains a question of reconciliation involving the original facility values, actual drawdowns, outstanding balances at the March 2014 handover date and subsequent repayments.
Obi called for the figures to be examined against the relevant financial records rather than being presented as a single aggregate figure.
He also appealed for the political debate to be conducted without unnecessary distractions, saying the country should concentrate on the economic difficulties and hardships facing Nigerians.
The former governor’s latest intervention comes as the debate over his financial record in Anambra continues to attract political attention ahead of the 2027 general elections.
