Former Anambra State Governor and 2027 presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, has dismissed claims by the Anambra State Government that his administration left behind inherited debts, including a purported ₦2 billion ecological loan, contractor liabilities and unpaid salaries, gratuities and pensions.
Obi, reacting to the claims in a statement, described them as “completely false,” insisting that his administration systematically cleared financial obligations inherited from previous governments.
According to him, his administration liquidated historical gratuities and arrears accumulated over several years, amounting to more than ₦35 billion. He maintained that by the time he handed over power, the state had no outstanding liabilities in salaries, gratuities or pensions and owed nothing to contractors for projects that had been duly executed and certified.
The former governor also provided an explanation for the controversial ₦2 billion ecological fund, insisting that it was not an ecological loan incurred by his administration.
He said the money was released barely three months before the end of his tenure specifically to address the Oko/Umuchiana erosion crisis. Obi said he deliberately resisted pressure to spend the funds before leaving office because the money was tied to a specific project and should be available to his successor.
According to Obi, the funds were left intact in a First Bank account, which he said had a balance of more than ₦2.13 billion at the point of handover.
He further maintained that funds earmarked for specific projects were excluded from the more than ₦75 billion in savings he claimed his administration left behind.
Obi challenged anyone who disputes his account to produce evidence, declaring that he would withdraw from the ongoing political campaign if the claims could be established.
“If anybody can establish anything to the contrary, I will stop campaigning,” he said.
It will also be recalled that Obi had previously invited the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate his administration before he handed over power as governor of Anambra State, an action he presented as evidence of his willingness to subject the state’s finances under his leadership to scrutiny.
The renewed dispute therefore goes beyond political claims, raising questions about the documentary records of Anambra’s finances at the point of transition, including audited accounts, debt profiles, contractor obligations, pension and gratuity liabilities, ecological funds and the state’s reported savings.
The controversy also puts pressure on the present administration to provide documentary evidence supporting its claims, just as Obi’s assertions would equally require verification against official financial records.
Ultimately, the competing narratives can be resolved through the state’s audited financial statements, bank records, debt schedules, appropriation and expenditure documents, project certification records and official handover documents.
For now, Obi has placed the burden of proof squarely before his accusers, while reiterating his willingness to have his record examined through verifiable evidence.
