Anambra’s Financial Records: What Do the Documents Actually Show?
The renewed disagreement between former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi and the administration of Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo over the state’s finances has once again placed questions about savings, investments, loans and inherited liabilities at the centre of public discussion.
Beyond the political exchanges, however, the issues raised by the two sides ultimately come down to a question that can be settled only by records: what exactly was in Anambra State’s accounts and investments when Peter Obi left office in March 2014, what liabilities existed at the time, and what happened to those assets and obligations afterwards?
A financial summary contained in the 2014 Anambra State Handover Report, covering the position as of March 14, 2014, the final working day of the Peter Obi administration, listed local investments of ₦27 billion, foreign-currency investments valued in the document at ₦26.5 billion, representing US$156 million, certified state and Ministry, Department and Agency balances of ₦28.165 billion, and a ₦10 billion Federal Government-approved refund.
The document placed the combined figure at ₦91.665 billion. It further estimated liabilities, including March salaries, pension and gratuity obligations and approved certificates relating to already executed projects, at ₦5 billion, leaving a stated net balance of approximately ₦86.666 billion.
The figures are significant because they provide a documented starting point for examining the longstanding argument over what Peter Obi handed over to his successor.
They also require careful interpretation, because the different categories in the handover statement were not necessarily cash sitting in one bank account.
Investments, foreign-currency holdings, government balances, refunds due from the Federal Government and liabilities have different accounting characteristics and cannot simply be treated as though they were identical forms of cash.
There is also a separate claim attributed to Peter Obi concerning the foreign-currency investments. In statements reported over the years, the former governor explained that his administration had accumulated dollar-denominated investments and savings as part of a strategy intended to provide the state with capital for future development. In one 2017 account, Obi explained that the US$156 million figure was connected to an investment strategy designed to use savings and investment earnings to attract productive enterprises into Anambra. He said the plan was influenced by the experience of Chinese regional governments and envisaged using state resources as equity contributions to support businesses and stimulate economic activity.
Obi has also separately maintained that his administration left US$50 million each in three commercial banks, giving a combined figure of US$150 million, alongside substantial naira savings. That claim should not automatically be merged with the US$156 million foreign-currency investment figure in the handover document without establishing whether the two figures referred to the same investments, different instruments or different components of the state’s financial position. Reporting from 2022 records Obi making the US$50 million-per-bank claim and putting the total savings at about ₦75 billion.
This distinction is important because the figures have sometimes been presented in public debate as though they were a single pot of money.
The available records instead point to several categories of assets and investments whose precise nature, location, maturity and subsequent treatment would need to be established before a definitive conclusion could be reached.
The questions that remain
The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether money existed when Obi left office, because the handover documentation provides figures for investments and balances. The more detailed questions concern the nature of those investments, the accounts or financial instruments in which they were held, their maturity dates, the certificates or other evidence backing them, the interest earned, whether they were renewed or redeemed, and what happened to the proceeds after the change of administration.
Those questions are particularly relevant to the US$156 million recorded as foreign-currency investment in the handover documentation.
A complete examination would require the underlying bank statements, investment certificates, treasury or investment records, maturity schedules, renewal instructions, redemption records and audited financial statements covering the relevant years.
The same principle applies to the wider financial position. A government can simultaneously possess assets and owe liabilities, meaning the existence of investments does not by itself establish that a state had no debt, just as the existence of debt does not by itself establish that a government had no savings or investments. What matters is the complete balance sheet at the relevant date and the documentary trail showing what happened to each material asset and liability afterwards.
The new debt controversy
The latest stage of the dispute was triggered by the Anambra State Government’s publication of records concerning external borrowings attributed to the Peter Obi administration.
In a statement issued in September 2026, the state government said Obi left office on March 17, 2014, with outstanding obligations from eight different external borrowings. It cited the latest Debt Management Office records and said that the outstanding balance of those loans stood at about ₦127.4 billion as of June 30, 2026, using the official exchange rate. The loans listed by the government include projects relating to malaria control, agriculture, health, education, community development, erosion control and value-chain development.
The state government has also disputed claims that the Obi administration left no unpaid obligations, alleging that inherited arrears involving salaries, pensions and gratuities remained after his tenure. According to the government, the Soludo administration has cleared about ₦22 billion in inherited gratuity arrears, while other legacy obligations, including liabilities involving former Water Corporation workers and primary-school teachers, remained subjects of settlement and verification.
These allegations are contested politically and should therefore be distinguished from established accounting facts.
The state government’s figures constitute its current account of the debt position and its interpretation of the DMO records, while Peter Obi has disputed aspects of the administration’s claims and challenged the presentation of some of the alleged liabilities.
The controversy is further complicated by the fact that the value of foreign-currency debt in naira can change substantially over time because of exchange-rate movements. Consequently, a dollar-denominated obligation should be examined in both its original currency and its naira equivalent at the relevant dates rather than relying on a single current naira figure to describe the historical obligation.
What the records can and cannot establish
The 2014 handover figures provide evidence of investments and balances attributed to the state at the point of transition, but they do not, by themselves, answer every question about the subsequent movement of those assets. Similarly, the current government’s debt records may establish the existence and outstanding balances of particular loans, but they do not by themselves resolve every question about the purpose, utilisation, repayment history or developmental impact of those borrowings.
Peter Obi has consistently defended the savings and investment strategy of his administration. In a 2017 explanation of the US$156 million, he said the objective was to accumulate capital that could subsequently be deployed to attract investments and create productive enterprises across Anambra.
Governor Soludo, on the other hand, has previously questioned the value and developmental impact of investments attributed to his predecessor. In 2022, he described the investments left by Obi as being worth “next to nothing,” a characterization that Obi rejected while maintaining that he had left substantial savings and investments for subsequent administrations.
The disagreement has therefore continued for years, with each side presenting a different interpretation of the state’s financial history.
The most useful way to move the discussion beyond political rhetoric is not to decide the matter through competing speeches, social-media posts or partisan interpretations, but to place the underlying financial documents before the public.
What should be made public?
For the citizens of Anambra, the most important information would include the complete 2014 handover documents, audited financial statements, bank statements covering the relevant accounts, certificates and documentation for the foreign-currency investments, records showing the maturity and redemption of those investments, details of any subsequent transfers or reinvestments, and the audited accounts of succeeding administrations showing how the assets were treated.
On the debt side, the public would benefit from access to the original loan agreements, dates of approval and disbursement, project descriptions, repayment schedules, amounts already repaid, outstanding balances and the corresponding DMO records. Such documentation would allow citizens and independent financial experts to distinguish between loans contracted during different administrations and determine precisely which liabilities remained outstanding at each point in time.
It would also be useful to reconcile the various figures that have entered public debate, particularly the US$156 million foreign-currency investment figure in the 2014 handover documentation and Obi’s separate statement that US$150 million was held through three commercial banks. Without the underlying documents, it would be premature to assume that the two figures represent exactly the same assets or that they are entirely unrelated.
The same documentary approach should apply to the current claim concerning US$123.77 million in external borrowing and the reported US$92.35 million outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The figures should be reconciled against the DMO’s records, the original loan agreements, the dates of disbursement and the repayment schedules so that the public can see precisely how the outstanding balance was calculated.
Beyond Peter Obi and Soludo
The wider lesson from the dispute goes beyond the personalities involved. Anambra State belongs to its citizens, while successive governors are temporary custodians of public resources. Every administration therefore has a responsibility to leave behind records that make it possible for the next administration, the legislature, auditors, journalists and citizens to determine what was inherited, what was added, what was spent, what was invested and what remains outstanding.
The current controversy also demonstrates why government financial records should not become political documents that appear only when one administration is defending itself against another. Public finances are a continuing obligation, and citizens should be able to follow the movement of major public assets and liabilities across administrations without depending entirely on statements made during political disagreements.
The records available so far show that the financial history of Anambra is more complicated than the competing slogans often used in political arguments. The 2014 handover documentation recorded substantial investments and balances, while current state records identify outstanding external obligations and other inherited liabilities. Both sets of information need to be examined together before a complete assessment of the state’s financial position can be made.
For that reason, the most important demand from the public should be for documentary reconciliation rather than political accusation. If the investment certificates, bank records, audited accounts, loan agreements, DMO schedules, repayment records and subsequent government financial statements are placed side by side, the questions surrounding the state’s finances can be addressed with considerably less room for speculation.
In the end, the issue is not simply whether Peter Obi saved money, whether Soludo has properly interpreted the debt records, or which political narrative is more attractive. The enduring question for the people of Anambra is whether the state’s public resources have been properly accounted for from one administration to the next. That is a question that the books, bank records and audited documents should be allowed to answer.
Compilation and source material: Prince Emeka Otusi Mmaduekwe
Voice of Insights, Wisdom & Direction
