By DIANA CHUKWUKA

Peter Obi, Soludo & the ₦86.6bn Question: Anambra’s Old Debt Battle Returns

A financial argument that began more than a decade ago has returned to the centre of political discussion in Anambra State.

At issue is a deceptively simple question: what financial position did Peter Obi leave behind when he handed over the governorship to Willie Obiano in March 2014?

The answer depends on which document is being examined.

Obi’s former Secretary to the State Government, Oseloka Obaze, has now released the former governor’s 2014 handover letter, arguing that it showed Anambra had about ₦86.67 billion in net assets and balances after provision for estimated liabilities.

The Anambra State Government, however, has presented a different part of the financial record. It says eight external financing facilities associated with the Obi administration totalled about US$123.7 million when originally contracted and that approximately US$92.35 million remained outstanding as of 30 June 2026.

The clash has consequently become a dispute not merely about figures but about what those figures represent.

Obaze Puts the Handover Record Back on the Table

Mr. Obaze says he personally witnessed the March 17, 2014 handover between Mr. Obi and Mr. Obiano.

According to him, Mr. Obiano received and acknowledged a copy of the outgoing administration’s financial documents, including certified bank statements and the handover report.

He subsequently published the handover letter as evidence supporting Mr. Obi’s account of what was left behind.

The document states that the outgoing administration was forwarding a summary of Anambra’s financial statement as of the close of business on 14 March 2014.

It listed ₦27 billion in local investments, about ₦25.6 billion representing foreign-currency investments, approximately ₦28.27 billion in certified state and MDA balances, and ₦10 billion in Federal Government refunds.

The combined figure was approximately ₦91.67 billion.

The report then made provision for ₦5 billion in estimated liabilities, including salaries, pensions, gratuities and approved certificates for completed projects.

That produced the reported net balance of ₦86.67 billion.

Why ₦86.67 Billion Does Not End the Argument

The handover document is important, but it must be read within its stated scope.

It presents a financial summary. It does not, at least in the portion now circulating publicly, provide a detailed schedule reconciling every loan facility, outstanding principal and debt obligation.

That means the document can support the claim that the Obi administration reported substantial assets and balances at handover. It cannot, by itself, establish the complete debt position of the state.

This is the distinction that has become increasingly important in the current debate.

A government can simultaneously possess significant financial assets and have outstanding borrowing obligations.

The relevant issue is therefore not simply how much money was available, but the relationship between the state’s assets, liabilities, debt and other financial commitments on the date of handover.

The Debt Figures Introduced by the Soludo Administration

The latest controversy began after the Anambra Commissioner for Finance, Izuchukwu Okafor, said the Soludo administration was still servicing loans and other obligations associated with previous governments.

Mr. Obi rejected the claim that he left Anambra in debt.

The state government then published information on eight external loans associated with the 2007–2013 period. It said the original facilities amounted to approximately US$123.7 million and that about US$92.35 million remained outstanding as of 30 June 2026.

That disclosure is relevant to the debate because it establishes that financing arrangements were entered into during the period.

But it does not automatically establish how much of the US$123.7 million remained outstanding when Mr. Obi handed over power.

That distinction is essential when attributing financial obligations to particular administrations.

Original Loan Amount Is Not the Same as Outstanding Debt

Consider the difference between a loan facility and the balance actually owed.

A government may sign a financing agreement for a specified amount but draw down only part of the facility. It may then repay some of what it has drawn before another administration takes office.

Consequently, the original value of a loan facility is not necessarily the same as the amount outstanding at handover.

The same principle applies to the US$92.35 billion figure cited by the state government — except that figure is reported as a balance as of June 30, 2026, more than 12 years after Mr. Obi left office.

Recent analysis of the dispute has therefore called for a facility-by-facility reconciliation of the March 2014 position rather than a comparison of the 2014 assets with the 2026 outstanding loan balance.

Obiano’s Earlier Comments Add Another Layer

The political history of the controversy also contains an important piece of evidence.

During a 2017 Channels Television governorship debate, Mr. Obiano reportedly said Mr. Obi had left ₦9 billion in cash and ₦25.6 billion in investments or “script issues,” while also referring to cheques issued before the former governor’s departure.

Mr. Obaze has used those comments to argue that Mr. Obiano had acknowledged aspects of the financial position described in the handover report.

Nevertheless, acknowledgment of selected financial assets does not amount to a comprehensive audit of the state’s total assets and liabilities.

The distinction remains important because the present dispute involves both sides of the ledger.

The Question of the Debt Stock in 2014

What remains unresolved is the precise debt stock on 17 March 2014.

Recent analysis has pointed to contemporaneous Debt Management Office figures showing that Anambra had recorded external and domestic debt around the end of 2013. Those figures do not necessarily establish the exact position on 17 March 2014, but they underscore why the handover summary should not automatically be treated as proof that the state had zero debt.

At the same time, the existence of debt around that period does not establish that the entire US$123.7 million later cited by the state government was outstanding when Mr. Obi left office.

The distinction is one of accounting chronology.

What a Complete Public Record Should Show

The controversy could be substantially clarified if the relevant records were brought together in one transparent reconciliation.

For each of the eight financing facilities identified by the state government, the public record would ideally show:

• the original loan commitment;
• the date the facility was approved and signed;
• the amount actually disbursed before 17 March 2014;
• the outstanding principal at the handover date;
• repayments made before and after the transition;
• additional drawdowns after Mr. Obi left office;
• and the balance inherited by subsequent administrations.

The same exercise should account for domestic liabilities, contractor obligations, pensions, salaries and other commitments listed in the 2014 handover documentation.

That would allow the public to distinguish between assets left behind, liabilities acknowledged at handover, loans contracted, funds actually drawn, and debt subsequently inherited and serviced.

Beyond the Political Battle

The renewed dispute has obvious political implications, particularly because Mr. Obi remains an active national political figure.

However, the underlying accounting question predates the present political environment.

Anambra citizens are entitled to know what each administration inherited and what it added to, repaid or transferred to its successor.

That requires records rather than competing political narratives.

The 2014 handover document is therefore an important piece of evidence, but it should not be treated as the final word on Anambra’s debt position. Likewise, the state’s current debt records are relevant but should not automatically be projected backwards to represent the exact debt stock inherited in March 2014.

The Figure That Could Settle the Argument

The most consequential number in the current debate may ultimately be neither ₦86.67 billion nor US$123.7 million.

It is the actual net debt position of Anambra State on 17 March 2014.

Establishing that figure would require matching the financial assets listed by the outgoing administration against verified liabilities and the outstanding balances on all relevant financing facilities at the point of transition.

Until that reconciliation is publicly established, the controversy is likely to continue producing competing figures — each drawn from genuine-looking parts of the state’s financial history, but not necessarily measuring the same thing.

For Anambra, the enduring issue is therefore larger than the political fortunes of Peter Obi, Willie Obiano or Charles Soludo.

It is whether the state’s financial history can be reconstructed clearly enough that citizens can distinguish what was borrowed, what was spent, what was saved, what was repaid and what was inherited.

That is the accounting trail the present controversy has brought back into focus.