SOLUDO’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBI KEEPS THE MARK
Sometime ago, Chukwuma Soludo publicly commended Peter Obi for the substantial funds he reportedly handed over to his successor, Willie Obiano, at the end of his tenure. That makes the governor’s latest financial claims about Obi particularly intriguing.
What has changed? And why is the issue resurfacing now, years after Obi left office?
Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo appears determined to keep Peter Obi under pressure over the financial record of his administration. But in the latest exchange, the documents being presented as evidence may not quite tell the story being attached to them.
Soludo accused Obi of misleading the public about Anambra’s finances when he left office, alleging that his administration inherited loans which it is still servicing. Obi challenged him to produce the evidence, saying he would stop campaigning if convincing proof emerged.
The Soludo administration subsequently released a list of loans it says were contracted during Obi’s tenure. But a fundamental question remains: were these actually loans contracted by the Anambra State Government under Obi or were some federal development programmes in which Anambra was simply a beneficiary?
Take the Nigeria Malaria Control Booster Project. The $150 million World Bank financing was arranged for Nigeria by the Federal Government, with Anambra among the beneficiary states. The World Bank documentation identifies the Federal Government as the borrower. Anambra’s participation in the programme, therefore, does not automatically mean that Obi borrowed $150 million for the state.
The same distinction applies to the Fadama programme. The $250 million financing was obtained by the Federal Government for a national programme in which Anambra participated. Being a beneficiary of a federally financed programme is not the same as independently borrowing the money.
The Health System Development Project also requires context. The programme predates Obi’s administration and was later supported by additional financing. Anambra’s involvement must therefore be distinguished from any claim that Obi personally contracted a fresh loan for the state.
This is where the argument becomes muddled.
There is a world of difference between a federal loan from which Anambra benefited, an obligation subsequently attributable to the state and a loan directly contracted by the Anambra State Government under Peter Obi.
And this is where one is tempted to ask: how can an economics professor speak from both sides of the balance sheet?
Soludo is entitled to publish Anambra’s debt records and explain what his administration inherited. But when a document lists a project involving Anambra, the next question should not simply be, ‘How much was borrowed?’ It should be, ‘Who borrowed it?’
That distinction matters.
If the loans were directly contracted by the Anambra State Government under Obi, the documents should establish that plainly. If they were federal borrowings under national programmes in which Anambra participated, that should equally be made clear.
The simplest way to settle the controversy is for both sides to identify, loan by loan, the borrower, lender, purpose, amount attributable to Anambra and outstanding balance when Obi left office.
That would settle the matter faster than political exchanges.
There is another curious dimension to this controversy. Soludo was previously reported as acknowledging that Obi left money in Anambra’s coffers. If that assessment was based on the records available to him at the time, how does it sit with the current attempt to portray Obi’s financial legacy primarily through inherited debts?
That does not automatically establish a contradiction. But it certainly calls for an explanation.
After all, an economics professor should understand better than most that context matters as much as figures.
A debt schedule can tell us what remains outstanding. It does not, by itself, tell us who contracted the original financing, why it was obtained or whether it was a direct state borrowing or part of a federally administered programme.
This is why the debate should move beyond political sound bites. If Soludo’s administration has evidence that Obi directly contracted the loans it says Anambra is still servicing, let the documents establish that clearly. If some of the obligations arose from federal programmes in which Anambra participated, let that distinction be equally clear.
Peter Obi should also resist being dragged into an endless war of accusations and counter-accusations. If the documents exist, let them speak.
After all, a loan is not defined by who points at the paperwork. It is defined by who borrowed the money and under what legal arrangement.
That is the question Anambra deserves answered.
Okiwelu Azed P., Asaba.
