The Anambra debt controversy surrounding Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate, Peter Obi deepened yesterday following the state government’s release of a document showing the approval of N363.381m as the second tranche of salary arrears to workers, pensioners and next of kin of the defunct Anambra State Water Corporation and the Anambra State Environmental Protection Agency.
The document, released yesterday, was dated May 24, 2025.
It was signed by the then Head of Service, Dame Theodora Okwy Igwegbe, and addressed to Governor Chukwuma Soludo.
The document was released following Obi’s insistence on Arise TV’s Prime Time programme on Thursday that he left Anambra State without unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions.
He said, ‘On the day I left office, the government of Anambra State, which I headed, was not owing any salary, gratuity, or pension to those scheduled to be paid by the state government.’
The Anambra State New Media Office highlighted the development surrounding the debt yesterday in a post on X.
The post was captioned, ‘PART 3: EVIDENCE THAT LYING IS IN PETER OBI’S DNA.’
It reads: ‘The Soludo administration paid the first tranche of State workers’ entitlements-entitlements Peter Obi left unpaid during his eight years as governor. Gov Soludo has now, also, paid the second. Peter Obi knows we know he’s lying.’
The document sought approval for the release of N363,381,000 for the payment of the second tranche of salary arrears under an out-of-court settlement between the state government and the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, Technical and Recreational Services Employees.
It stated that the payment was part of the terms of settlement reached on February 6, 2024, concerning arrears owed to workers, pensioners and next of kin of the defunct Water Corporation and ANSEPA.
According to the document, the second tranche was due for disbursement in 2026.
The Head of Service wrote, ‘That the agreed second tranche payment of Three Hundred and Sixty-Three Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira only (N363,381,000.00) is due for disbursement in line with the Terms of Settlement signed on 6th February 2024.’
She added that the payment would be processed through the State Government Payroll System via a dedicated account.
The document further stated that the payment would ‘further reinforce your administration’s commitment to social justice, workers’ welfare, and adherence to agreements reached with organised labour.’
Speaking during the interview with Arise TV, Obi denied allegations that about $123.77 million in external loans associated with projects during his tenure as Anambra governor remained outstanding.
The former governor rejected the characterisation of the entire $123.77 million as ‘loans left by Peter Obi’, arguing that the figure conflated approved facilities, actual drawdowns and outstanding balances.
On the debt controversy, Obi insisted that he did not approach any financial institution to borrow money or issue a bond on behalf of Anambra State during his tenure.
‘As Governor of Anambra State, I did not approach any financial institution to borrow funds or issue a bond on behalf of the state,’ he said.
He cited a statement attributed to the former Director-General of the Debt Management Office (DMO), Abraham Nwankwo, who, according to Obi, 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 also maintained that he left office on March 17, 2014, without unpaid salaries, gratuities or pensions, and without outstanding payments to contractors or suppliers whose completed works had been verified and certified.
On the multilateral financing cited by the Anambra Government, Obi said the facilities were principally World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) development programmes negotiated by the Federal Government and made available to participating states through subsidiary arrangements.
‘The eight facilities identified were primarily World Bank and IFAD development programs negotiated by the Federal Government, with participating states receiving access to the funds through subsidiary arrangements,’ he said.
‘They were not conventional commercial loans that I personally secured during my tenure.’
Obi, however, acknowledged that the state had repayment obligations under the facilities, but argued that each facility should be examined according to its approval, effectiveness, drawdown and repayment history.
The former governor accused the Anambra Government of combining three separate categories – the total amount approved for multiyear programmes, the amount actually drawn during his tenure and the balance outstanding at handover – and presenting the aggregate as debt inherited from his administration.
‘The government has combined these distinct categories, added them together, and described the resulting US$123.77 million as ‘loans left by Peter Obi.’ That is an incorrect application of public-sector accounting,’ he said.
The Anambra Government had maintained that eight external loan facilities associated with projects during Obi’s tenure had a combined contracted value of about $123.77 million, with $92.35 million outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The state has attributed the figures to records from the DMO.
Obi questioned how the $123.77 million figure could represent the debt he allegedly left behind, citing DMO figures which he said put Anambra’s external debt at about $18 million when he assumed office in March 2006, about $30 million when he left in March 2014 and about $45.15 million by December 2014.
‘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, who left office in March of that same year,’ he said.
Obi also reiterated his claim that he left more than $150 million as the dollar component of his investment in Anambra State when he left office.
‘On the day I left office, I left more than US$150 million as the dollar component of my investment in Anambra State as governor,’ he said, adding that the funds were expected to generate about $10 million annually.
He argued that even if the state’s claim of a $123 million debt were accepted, the income from the funds he said he left behind would have been sufficient over the years to settle the obligation.
‘If they had chosen to repay the US$92.35 million funding, the entire amount would have been covered, leaving approximately US$242 million to be reinvested,’ he said.
Obi said he would not engage in a prolonged public dispute over his tenure in Anambra.
He said: ‘Let me reiterate that, when I left office, I left Anambra State in a strong financial position – the strongest of any state in Nigeria – and I stand by that position.
‘Through this clarification, I wish to state categorically that I will neither engage nor trade words with anyone regarding my tenure in Anambra State.’
Anambra commissioner for budget and economic planning, Chukwukadibia Okoye,
yesterday replied Obi over his claim that the $156m he left was huge enough to settle any other so-called debt as claimed.
The commissioner said there are many questions to be answered by Obi on the issue, adding that Obi is slowly drifting away from the facts of the matter.
According to him,’in public accounting and generally accepted accounting principles, nobody refuses to account for a valid liability, and when it is brought to his attention, his defence becomes that the assets are sufficient to pay undisclosed liability. At the minimum, such accounting records are withdrawn and ‘restated.’ This is the globally accepted standard.
‘The more fundamental question is whether the assertion that HE Peter Obi left no liability other than the ?5 billion disclosed in his handover note is accurate.
‘The Anambra State Government has presented records indicating that there were indeed external debts and other financial obligations that remained unsettled as at the date he left office.
‘The issue, therefore, is not merely whether there were assets on one side of the balance sheet capable of covering some liabilities.
‘It is whether the handover statement provided a complete and accurate picture of both the assets and liabilities of the State as at 17 March 2014.
‘There is also a legitimate question around the veracity, nature and valuation of some of the assets described as investments.
‘Not everything described as an investment necessarily represents cash or a readily realisable financial asset. For instance, an uncompleted project cannot ordinarily be treated in the same manner as cash or a liquid financial investment.
‘At best, it is a work in progress whose value would need to be independently established.
‘The same scrutiny should apply to the valuation of equity investments. The reported investment in Intafact, for instance, has subsequently suffered a material diminution of almost 80%.
‘This raises an important accounting question: what was the basis of the valuation assigned to such investments at the point of handover, and were those valuations realistic, independently verifiable, and realisable?
‘So, the $156 million argument does not, by itself, settle the controversy. The questions that need to be answered are much broader.
‘What were the State’s complete liabilities and commitments on that same date? Have they been properly and fully disclosed. Does that report represent true and fair position of the assets and liabilities of the state at handover date.
‘The real issue is the completeness and accuracy of the 2014 handover position’ Okoye told The Nation.