Olu Allen
The latest dispute over Peter Obi’s financial record in Anambra State has reached the point where political speeches are no longer enough.
The argument now requires something far less dramatic but far more useful: documents.
On Wednesday, the Anambra State Government escalated its challenge to Obi’s account of the state’s finances when Commissioner for Information and Value Reorientation, Law Mefor, released a statement titled, “Gov Peter Obi and Record of Public Debt in Anambra: Facts Beyond Propaganda and Lies.”
The government’s central claim is that eight external loans associated with previous administrations remained outstanding as of 30 June 2026, with a combined balance of $92.35 million, approximately N127.4 billion at the exchange rate used by the state.
The loans relate to projects in areas including malaria control, agriculture, healthcare, education, community development and erosion management.
That figure is substantial.
But before it becomes another weapon in Nigeria’s political shouting match, an important distinction must be made.
Debt is not synonymous with corruption.
A government can legitimately borrow for a public project, execute that project, and still leave an outstanding liability for a successor government to service.
Therefore, the existence of a debt does not, by itself, establish that Peter Obi stole money.
But neither does saying, “I left the state without debt,” settle the matter.
That is where the documents become important.
What did Obi actually claim?
Obi has rejected the Anambra government’s account.
In his response, he said that when he left office in March 2014, the state owed nothing in salaries, pensions or gratuities, and that his administration had cleared more than N35 billion in historical gratuity and arrears.
He also disputed the allegation surrounding an ecological fund of more than N2 billion.
According to Obi, the money was released shortly before the end of his tenure for the Oko/Umuchiana erosion crisis.
He said he deliberately left it untouched for his successor because it had been earmarked for a specific project.
He identified a First Bank account and said it contained more than N2.13 billion when he handed over power.
He then issued a political challenge: if anybody could establish otherwise, he would stop campaigning.
That challenge changed the nature of the argument.
Because once a specific bank account and a specific amount are placed on the table, the dispute becomes testable.
And now, the Anambra government says it has tested it.
The bank account is now the most interesting part of the dispute
Mefor says the government obtained a certified printout of the First Bank account identified by Obi.
According to the commissioner, the account was not an ecological-fund account but an Internally Generated Revenue Consolidated Revenue Account.
More importantly, he claimed that the account records, from its opening in 2011 to date, do not show the N2.13 billion balance Obi described.
That is a serious counterclaim.
But it should also be treated as a claim that requires verification.
If the certified bank record exists, it should settle at least this part of the controversy.
What was the account called?
Who controlled it?
What were its opening and closing balances?
What inflows did it receive?
Was the ecological allocation deposited there?
If so, when?
And what happened to the money afterwards?
Those questions are more useful than another hundred political statements.
Then what does the ₦127.4 billion mean?
This is where precision matters.
The Anambra government is not saying that Peter Obi personally borrowed N127.4 billion in 2013 or 2014.
It says eight external loans associated with previous administrations still had an outstanding balance of $92.35 million as of 30 June 2026.
The state converted that foreign-currency balance into approximately N127.4 billion using the relevant 2026 exchange rate.
That distinction is crucial.
A dollar-denominated loan contracted years ago can have a dramatically different naira value today because of exchange-rate movements.
So presenting the current naira equivalent without the historical context can create the impression that the same amount of naira was borrowed at the time.
It wasn’t necessarily so.
The questions that matter are:
What was the original loan amount?
When was each loan contracted?
Who authorised it?
How much was actually disbursed?
What projects were financed?
How much had been repaid by March 2014?
How much remained outstanding when Obi handed over?
What has each succeeding administration repaid?
What is the current principal and what is accumulated interest?
That is the forensic trail.
The projects matter as much as the loans
The government has identified loans connected to projects such as the Malaria Control Booster Project, Third National Fadama Development Project, Health System Development Project II, State Education Program Investment Project, Community and Social Development Project, Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project, and Value Chain Development Project.
Now comes another obvious question:
Were these projects actually executed?
If they were, what did they cost?
Who implemented them?
When were they completed?
What did the state receive in return for the borrowing?
A loan is not inherently evidence of financial misconduct.
But a loan without a transparent project trail raises legitimate questions.
That is why the debate should move beyond the amount of debt and towards the entire audit trail.
And then there are the arrears
The Anambra government has also challenged Obi’s claim that he left office without salary, pension and gratuity obligations.
Mefor said the Soludo administration had cleared about N22 billion in inherited gratuity arrears while maintaining that some legacy liabilities remained from Obi and earlier administrations.
The government specifically mentioned arrears involving former Water Corporation workers and primary-school teachers.
It said the Obi administration had verified and certified 16 months of salary arrears for primary-school teachers but paid five months.
Obi disputes that broader characterization.
Again, the answer is not going to come from which politician makes the more convincing speech.
It should come from payroll records, payment schedules, pension records, government liabilities and the documents exchanged during the 2014 transition.
This is where the language of politics can become misleading
There is a subtle but important difference between several statements that are currently being mixed together.
“I left no debt.
“I left no unpaid salary or pension.
“No loan contracted during my administration remained outstanding.
“Anambra is still servicing loans associated with previous administrations.
“Peter Obi personally stole N127.4 billion.”
These are not the same claims.
The available reporting does not establish the last one merely because the state says outstanding loans remain.
Likewise, saying that loans remain outstanding does not automatically prove that Obi personally left an improperly managed government.
The political argument becomes much easier to manipulate when these distinctions disappear.
Government is a continuum — including its liabilities
Nigerians should keep another principle in mind.
Governments inherit assets.
They inherit liabilities.
They inherit contracts.
They inherit unfinished projects.
They inherit loans.
They inherit pension obligations.
That is not unusual. It is part of the continuity of government.
The real issue is whether those obligations were legitimately incurred, properly documented, properly applied and transparently handed over.
And that standard should apply equally to every administration.
Peter Obi should not receive a special standard.
Neither should Chukwuma Soludo.
Neither should any other governor, president or public official.
So, what should be published?
This controversy could actually become useful if both sides are prepared to put the relevant records in the public domain.
The Anambra government should publish the documentation supporting its debt position, including the relevant loan agreements, disbursement records, repayment schedules and current balances.
If it says eight loans remained outstanding after the 2014 handover, the public should be able to establish precisely what each balance was at the point Obi left office.
Obi, in turn, should make available the handover documents and financial records supporting his claim about the state’s liabilities and cash position.
On the ecological fund, the bank statement is particularly important.
If the N2.13 billion was in the account Obi identified, the record should show it.
If it was not, the certified bank records should show that too.
And if the money was transferred elsewhere, there should be a corresponding paper trail
That is what accountability looks like.
Not “believe me.”
Not “my opponent is lying.”
Not “the internet agrees with me.”
Documents. Dates. Amounts. Bank records. Loan agreements. Project records. Handover records.
The bigger lesson
Nigeria has spent far too much time treating public finance as a contest between political narratives.
A politician says he left billions.
His successor says he inherited liabilities.
Supporters circulate one figure.
Opponents circulate another.
Soon, the numbers become political slogans rather than financial records.
But public money should not depend on who tells the better story.
If the borrowing was legitimate and the projects were properly executed, the records should demonstrate that.
If there were liabilities, the records should show when they arose and who was responsible for them.
If public funds were misapplied, the audit trail should reveal that.
And if an allegation is false, the same records should be capable of disproving it.
That is the standard Nigeria should demand.
Not just in Anambra.
Everywhere.
The current controversy is therefore bigger than Peter Obi, Chukwuma Soludo or the politics of 2027.
It is a test of whether Nigerians are willing to demand evidence even when the evidence might complicate the political story they already prefer.
The question should not be:
“Do you believe Obi?”
Nor should it be:
“Do you believe Soludo?”
The better question is:
“What do the records show?”
Because when public money is involved, political loyalty should end where the audit trail begins.
Allen writes on public affairs and good governance.
