Anambra Releases Debt Records, Says Eight Obi-Era Loans Remain Outstanding

The political argument between former Anambra Governor Peter Obi and the state government has moved from competing claims about inherited liabilities to a battle over documents, loan records and what exactly constitutes a debt left behind by a former administration.

The Anambra State Government says eight external loan facilities contracted during Obi’s tenure remained outstanding, with their combined balance reaching N127.4 billion as of June 30, 2026, when converted at the official exchange rate.

Obi, however, insists he left office without unpaid salaries, pensions, gratuities or properly processed contractor obligations, describing the earlier allegations against his administration as false.

ValidViewNetwork reports that the latest development came after the state government released details of the loans in response to Obi’s public rejection of claims that his administration left significant unpaid obligations for subsequent governments.

What the Anambra Government is claiming

The state government’s case was presented by the Commissioner for Information and Value Reorientation, Law Mefor, in a statement responding to Obi’s recent comments.

According to the government, Obi’s administration contracted eight external loans with a combined original value of about $123.77 million. The outstanding balance of those facilities was put at $92.35 million, equivalent to approximately N127.4 billion, as of June 30, 2026.

The government said the loans were connected to projects and programmes covering areas including malaria control, erosion management, education, healthcare and community development.

It also said the present administration continues to make debt-service payments on the facilities.

The distinction is important. $123.77 million is not the amount the state says is currently outstanding.

It is the reported total value of the external facilities attributed to Obi’s administration when contracted. The figure said to remain outstanding as of June 2026 is $92.35 million, which the state converts to N127.4 billion at the official exchange rate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Obi rejects the debt claim

Obi had responded to the earlier allegations before the state released its detailed rebuttal.

The former governor said his administration systematically cleared historical arrears and claimed that more than N35 billion was used to liquidate old gratuities and other liabilities.

He also maintained that he left office without outstanding salaries, pensions or gratuities owed by his administration.

Introducing his position, Obi said his administration had paid what was due before the handover and challenged anyone with contrary evidence to produce it.

His position therefore creates an important distinction between borrowing during an administration and unpaid obligations due at the point of handover.

A government can contract a long-term external loan for a development project and leave office while repayments continue for years. The existence of an outstanding loan balance does not, by itself, establish that the former governor personally failed to pay a bill that had fallen due.

That distinction is central to properly understanding the current dispute.

The ecological fund is another point of disagreement

The two sides also disagree over an alleged ecological fund of about N2.1 billion.

Obi said the Federal Government released the money shortly before the end of his administration for an erosion-control project around Oko and Umuchiana.

He maintained that he deliberately left the money untouched because it was earmarked for a specific project and that it remained in a First Bank account when he handed over to Willie Obiano in March 2014.

The Anambra Government disputes this account and says it has found no record establishing that the state received the claimed ecological fund during Obi’s tenure.

ValidViewNetwork had earlier reported that Obi challenged the state government to produce evidence of the debts and other liabilities attributed to his administration.

The latest statement from the state changes the nature of that challenge because the government is now pointing to records it says came from the Debt Management Office and has provided figures for the eight external facilities.

What the records can and cannot establish

The current evidence supports a narrower conclusion than either side’s political rhetoric.

The Anambra Government has presented a claim that eight external loans associated with Obi’s administration remained outstanding and says the figures are reflected in DMO debt records.

That is different from establishing that Obi personally acted improperly or that he left the state without paying debts that were legally due at the time he handed over.

Similarly, Obi’s assertion that he left no unpaid salaries, pensions, gratuities or contractor obligations does not by itself settle whether long-term external loan facilities contracted during his tenure remained outstanding.

The proper way to resolve the disagreement is therefore to examine the underlying loan agreements, DMO records, repayment schedules, dates of disbursement, dates of maturity and the debt position at the point Obi handed over power on March 17, 2014.

ValidViewNetwork states that public debt should be judged not merely by its headline figure but also by what the borrowing financed, the repayment terms, the assets or services created and the financial position inherited by subsequent administrations.

There is also an important political context.

Obi is now a presidential candidate for the 2027 election, making the financial record of his eight-year administration in Anambra politically significant.

That context makes independently verifiable documentation even more important, rather than less.

The real test is accountability

The emerging dispute should not be reduced to a contest of political assertions.

If the DMO records show that the eight facilities were contracted under Obi’s administration and remained legally outstanding after he left office, that should be clearly established with the relevant documents.

If some liabilities attributed to him actually originated elsewhere, or if they had already been settled before the 2014 handover, those records should equally be made public.

The same standard applies to Obi’s claim that he left more than N75 billion in savings and that the ecological fund remained intact.

Those claims can be tested through audited accounts, bank records, official government documents and transition records rather than political exchanges.

ValidViewNetwork has been able to establish from the competing accounts that the disagreement is not simply about whether Anambra ever borrowed money.

It is about the origin, status, repayment and treatment of specific liabilities and funds at the point of transition from one administration to another.

For a matter involving public money, the strongest answer is therefore not accusation or counter-accusation, but records that citizens can examine.

The Debt Management Office figures, audited accounts, loan documents and transition records should ultimately provide the factual foundation for determining what Anambra owed, when it was incurred, what had been repaid and what remained outstanding.

The political season may intensify the argument, but public finance should remain larger than politics.

Evidence must settle the figures, accountability must follow the records, and competing political claims must not replace verifiable facts, ValidViewNetwork reports.