Peter Obi Breaks Silence: “I Didn’t Borrow” — Former Gov Challenges Anambra’s $123.77m Debt Narrative As Handover Records Collide With Dmo Figures In Fiery Financial Showdown
By Passman Akpos
Former Anambra State Governor and presidential candidate Peter Obi has renewed his challenge to the Anambra State Government over claims that his administration left behind external loans amounting to approximately US$123.77 million, insisting that the figure wrongly combines approved facilities, actual drawdowns and outstanding obligations.
Obi, who addressed the controversy after several days of silence following the death of his elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe, said he had no disagreement with Governor Chukwuma Soludo and was not seeking to return to the office of governor.
His intervention comes amid a growing public dispute over the financial obligations associated with development programmes implemented during his administration between 2006 and 2014.
The Anambra State Government has maintained that eight external loan facilities linked to projects undertaken during Obi’s tenure had a combined contracted value of US$123.77 million, with about US$92.35 million reportedly still outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The state has said successive administrations have continued to service the obligations.
Obi, however, disputes the description of the entire US$123.77 million as debt he personally left behind.
OBI: “I DID NOT BORROW OR ISSUE A BOND”
According to Obi, he did not approach any financial institution to borrow money or issue a bond on behalf of Anambra State during his tenure.
He also cited former Director-General of the Debt Management Office, Abraham Nwankwo, whom he said publicly recognised him as the only state governor during Nwankwo’s 10-year tenure who did not approach the DMO for a loan facility.
Obi further maintained that when he left office on March 17, 2014, Anambra had no unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions that were due for payment by the state government, and no outstanding obligations to contractors or suppliers whose completed work had been verified and certified.
The former governor’s account has been reported by multiple Nigerian media organisations following his appearance on Arise TV.
THE CENTRAL DISPUTE: APPROVED FACILITIES, DRAWNDOWNS OR ACTUAL DEBT?
At the heart of the controversy is how the US$123.77 million figure should be interpreted.
Obi said the facilities identified by the Anambra Government were primarily World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) development programmes negotiated through the Federal Government, with participating states accessing the funds through subsidiary arrangements.
He argued that the amount approved or contracted for a multiyear programme should not automatically be treated as the amount actually drawn by Anambra or the amount outstanding when he left office.
“This does not suggest that Anambra had no repayment responsibilities,” Obi said in his clarification, arguing instead that each facility should be examined according to its approval, effectiveness, drawdown and repayment history.
The distinction between the value of a facility and the amount actually disbursed has also featured in public discussion of the controversy.
OBI QUESTIONS DMO DEBT FIGURES
Obi also challenged the government’s presentation by referring to Debt Management Office figures he said showed Anambra’s total external debt at approximately US$18 million in March 2006, around US$30 million in March 2014, and approximately US$45.15 million by December 2014.
He questioned how a state whose recorded external debt was approximately US$30 million around the time he left office could subsequently be described as having inherited US$123.77 million from his administration.
The argument does not necessarily resolve the accounting question because the two sides are disputing what exactly the respective figures represent — whether total external debt stock, individual project facilities, amounts committed, amounts disbursed or balances subsequently repayable.
The Anambra Government, for its part, has maintained that the eight facilities were external borrowings connected to projects during the Obi administration and that significant balances remain outstanding.
OBI PRESENTS $150M CLAIM
Another major element of Obi’s latest intervention is his claim that he left more than US$150 million in dollar-denominated funds and investments for Anambra State when he left office.
He said documents supporting the claim, including bank statements, were contained in his handover records.
Obi said the funds, if retained and managed as he described, could have generated approximately US$10 million annually and could therefore have been used to address the alleged outstanding obligations.
He further argued that, based on his calculations, retaining the principal and accumulated returns over the years would have produced a substantially larger amount.
Obi has invited journalists and relevant institutions to independently verify the documents.
During his Arise TV appearance, he reportedly presented handover documents and bank-related records and urged the media organisation to verify the claims with the World Bank and the banks identified in the documents.
ANAMBRA GOVERNMENT’S POSITION
The Anambra State Government has rejected Obi’s broader claim that he left the state without outstanding financial obligations.
In its September 2026 response, the government identified eight external facilities linked to projects including malaria control, Fadama development, healthcare, education, erosion and watershed management, community development and agricultural value-chain development.
It put the combined contracted value of the facilities at US$123.77 million and said approximately US$92.35 million remained outstanding as of June 30, 2026.
The government has also disputed Obi’s assertions concerning other financial liabilities, including claims relating to pensions, gratuities and an ecological fund.
Those claims remain part of the wider political and accounting dispute.
NO PERSONAL CLASH WITH SOLUDO, OBI SAYS
Despite the intensifying debate, Obi said he had no disagreement with Soludo and described him as his “dear elder brother.”
He also said he was not seeking the governorship of Anambra or any other state again, even if the Constitution were amended to permit him to do so.
Obi appealed to governors to allow presidential and other political candidates to campaign freely in their states, saying voters should ultimately determine who governs them.
He said his focus would remain on what he described as the broader challenges confronting Nigerians.
POLITICAL SUPPORTERS TURN DEBATE INTO 2027 ARGUMENT
The debt controversy has also generated strong reactions among Obi’s supporters.
Some supporters praised his decision to make his handover documents available for verification, describing the move as evidence of transparency and accountability.
Others have used the controversy to reinforce their support for Obi ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with some social-media commentators portraying him as an alternative to the established political order.
One supporter urged Obi to stop referring to Soludo as an elder brother and instead concentrate on his presidential ambition and national issues.
Another commentator claimed Obi’s appearance on Arise TV demonstrated preparation and accountability, while another recalled receiving computers during Obi’s tenure and praised his administration’s investment in education.
These are political supporters’ opinions and personal accounts, rather than independently established findings about the debt controversy.
THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN
The emerging dispute leaves several issues requiring documentary clarification.
How much of the US$123.77 million was actually disbursed to Anambra State before March 17, 2014?
How much remained outstanding on the exact date Obi handed over?
Which facilities were negotiated directly by the Federal Government, and what repayment obligations were transferred to Anambra State?
What were the individual drawdowns and repayment schedules for each of the eight facilities?
How do the DMO’s historical debt-stock figures reconcile with the individual project facilities listed by the Anambra Government?
And what happened to the more than US$150 million in funds and investments Obi says he left behind?
These questions can be settled more conclusively through the underlying DMO records, World Bank and IFAD documentation, subsidiary loan agreements, project disbursement records, bank statements and Anambra State’s audited financial records.
For now, the disagreement remains a contest between two different interpretations of the state’s financial records.
Obi insists that he left Anambra in a strong financial position and that describing US$123.77 million in development facilities as “loans left by Peter Obi” is misleading.
The Anambra Government maintains that the facilities were external loans contracted during his administration and that substantial balances remain for the state to service.
The documents behind those competing claims — rather than political declarations alone — are likely to determine how the public ultimately understands the Anambra debt question.
