Former Anambra State Governor and Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has ruled out any return to the governorship, saying he has no disagreement with his successor, Chukwuma Soludo.
Obi made the position known on Friday while responding to the controversy surrounding external development financing linked to projects executed during his administration in Anambra.
He also urged political leaders to allow candidates from different parties to campaign freely in their states, saying Nigerians should be allowed to decide who they want to govern them.
Obi said his recent silence on the debt controversy was largely because he was mourning his late elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe.
‘I wish to assure the public that I have no disagreement with my dear elder brother, Governor Soludo, or with any governor in Nigeria. I am not seeking the office of governor in any state, and I will not seek that position again, even if the Constitution is amended’, he stated.
He appealed to state governors not to restrict political opponents from campaigning in their jurisdictions.
‘Accordingly, I appeal to governors to support whichever presidential candidate they choose while also permitting and assisting other presidential candidates and contenders for other offices to campaign freely and without interruption in their states. Ultimately, voters should be allowed to determine whom they wish to serve them.’
The former governor also called for greater attention to the difficulties facing Nigerians, rather than what he described as political distractions.
‘On the Anambra debt question, I have remained silent over the past few days because I have been grieving the loss of my very dear elder brother and friend, Chief Okey Ezeibe. However, the time has come for me to address some of the matters that have occupied public discussion in recent days. I respectfully urge everyone to concentrate on the existential challenges confronting Nigeria and the hardships endured by its citizens, rather than on the needless distractions that have become widespread in our politics.’
The debt controversy followed claims by the Anambra State Government concerning eight external facilities connected with development projects undertaken during Obi’s administration.
According to the state government, the facilities had a combined contracted value of $123.77m, while $92.35m was outstanding as of June 30, 2026, citing figures from the Debt Management Office.
Obi, however, disputed the description of the facilities as ‘debt owed by Peter Obi’.
He argued that most of the funding came from development programmes involving the World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development, which were negotiated by the Federal Government and made available to participating states through subsidiary arrangements.
He also accused the state government of conflating different financial figures.
‘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 argued.
Obi insisted that he did not personally obtain loans from financial institutions or issue bonds on behalf of Anambra State during his tenure.
‘Regarding the multilateral funding inaccurately described as ‘debt owed by Peter Obi’ in Anambra State, I wish to state unequivocally, as Governor of Anambra State, I did not approach any financial institution to borrow funds or issue a bond on behalf of the state.
‘Indeed, at his farewell ceremony, the then Director-General of the DMO, Abraham Nwankwo, appointed me chairman and declared that, during his 10 years in office, I was the only state governor who had not approached him for a loan facility.’
The former governor further maintained that his administration left the state without outstanding obligations to workers, pensioners, contractors or suppliers whose completed jobs had been verified.
‘When I left office, the Anambra State Government owed no unpaid salaries, gratuities, or pensions. Neither did it owe any contractor or supplier who had completed work that the government had verified and certified.’
According to Obi, the facilities should be assessed individually by examining when they were approved, when they became effective, the amount actually drawn and the repayments made.
‘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. They were not conventional commercial loans that I personally secured during my tenure. This does not suggest that Anambra had no repayment responsibilities; rather, each facility must be examined in light of its approval, effectiveness, drawdown, and repayment record’, he explained.
He also questioned the basis for attributing the entire $123.77m contracted value of the facilities to his administration, citing DMO records on Anambra’s external debt at different periods.
‘The clearest contradiction appears in the government’s own figures. It states that the original facilities amounted to approximately US$123.77 million and that US$92.35 million remained outstanding in June 2026. However, the DMO’s published records showed Anambra’s total external debt at approximately US$18 million when I began my tenure in March 2006, about US$30 million in March 2014, when I left office, and approximately US$45.15 million as of 31 December 2014, nine months after my departure.
‘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 concluded.