Anambra State’s government has publicly disputed former governor Peter Obi’s assertion that he saved $150 million in the state’s treasury during his 2006–2014 tenure, arguing that the funds should have been allocated to critical development projects rather than deposited in banks. The Commissioner for Information, Law Mefor, issued a statement on Saturday clarifying the state’s position, emphasizing that Obi’s administration failed to address pressing infrastructural and social challenges despite the alleged savings.
The controversy emerged after Obi, the 2027 presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), claimed during an interview on Arise News that his administration had preserved $150 million, which he argued could have been used to settle outstanding debts. The Anambra State Government, however, accused Obi of misrepresenting the purpose of public office, stating that his focus on financial reserves overlooked the urgent needs of the state’s population.
Mefor criticized Obi’s approach, stating, “The government exists to improve the security and welfare of the people, and not to save money and earn interest.” He highlighted that during Obi’s tenure, Anambra lacked basic infrastructure, including pipe-borne water, power plants, airports, and government lodges, while over 900 gully erosion sites plagued the state. “It would be irresponsible for a government to tax impoverished residents and save the proceeds in banks while millions face poverty and insecurity,” Mefor added.
The commissioner further argued that Obi’s savings strategy was economically unsound, noting that investing in human capital and infrastructure would yield higher returns than the “minuscule financial returns” from interest income. He contended that Obi’s successor, Governor Willie Obiano, had better utilized the funds, including financing the construction of an airport and other projects. “Obiano’s administration pulled millions out of poverty and improved security until the 2021 terror attacks,” Mefor stated.
Obi, however, denied that his successor spent the savings, instead asserting that the funds could have been used to repay debts. In his interview, he claimed, “If they kept that money and used the income to pay the loan, they would have finished paying it now with the capital remaining, and still giving Anambra $10 million annually.” The Anambra government countered by citing loan records showing that Obi’s administration had taken $123.7 million in external loans, with $92.35 million still outstanding as of June 2026.
Mefor also disputed the financial details in Obi’s handover letter, alleging that it concealed liabilities. He revealed that the document omitted contracts for 101 roads totaling 779 kilometers, with outstanding liabilities of N127 billion. Additionally, he questioned the inclusion of N10 billion in “approved refunds” from the federal government, which he claimed had not been received before Obi left office.
The state government further challenged Obi’s claim of leaving N2.13 billion in ecological funds for the Oko/Umuchiana erosion crisis. Mefor stated that the First Bank account Obi cited was not an ecological funds account but an Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) account, which did not hold the alleged sum. A bank statement from September 2026 confirmed that the IGR account’s balance in March 2014 was far below N2 billion, leaving the funds’ whereabouts unexplained.
Obi responded to the allegations by denying any debt incurred during his tenure, asserting that he had saved N75 billion in the state’s account. However, the Anambra government maintained its stance, citing loan records to support its claims. The dispute underscores broader concerns about financial transparency and accountability in state governance.
The conflict has reignited debates about the management of public funds in Anambra, a state historically plagued by economic challenges. Critics argue that the government’s focus on debt repayment has overshadowed investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, exacerbating the state’s development gaps. Meanwhile, supporters of Obi defend his fiscal prudence, contending that his savings provided a financial buffer for future administrations.
Mefor’s statement also addressed the broader implications of Obi’s policies, accusing him of prioritizing personal interests over public welfare. He cited the lack of government housing and the decay of public institutions as evidence of systemic neglect. “A leader in his right mind would not save money while millions suffer,” Mefor said, emphasizing the need for accountability in public spending.
The Anambra government’s critique of Obi’s legacy reflects a broader political dynamic in Nigeria, where financial management and development outcomes are often contentious. The state’s ongoing debt challenges, including the $123.7 million loans, highlight the complexities of balancing fiscal responsibility with social investment.
Obi’s response to the allegations has been met with mixed reactions. While some political analysts argue that his focus on savings was a strategic move to stabilize the state’s finances, others question whether the funds were adequately utilized for public benefit. The debate has also drawn attention to the role of external loans in state budgets, with critics warning of unsustainable debt accumulation.
The controversy has further complicated Anambra’s political landscape, as the state prepares for future elections. The 2027 presidential race, in which Obi is a key contender, has intensified scrutiny of his financial record, with both supporters and opponents leveraging the issue to shape public perception.
Mefor’s statements underscore the government’s commitment to transparency, though the lack of resolution in the financial dispute leaves lingering questions. The state’s ongoing efforts to reconcile its debt and improve infrastructure remain central to its development agenda, with stakeholders urging a focus on long-term solutions over political rhetoric.
The case of Anambra’s finances highlights the broader challenges facing Nigerian states, where fiscal management often intersects with political accountability. As the state navigates its economic recovery, the debate over Obi’s legacy serves as a microcosm of the tensions between fiscal conservatism and developmental priorities.
The Anambra government’s position has been reinforced by its assertion that Obi’s administration failed to address critical infrastructure gaps, despite the alleged savings. This has led to calls for greater oversight of state finances, with civil society groups advocating for independent audits to resolve discrepancies.
As the discussion continues, the focus remains on ensuring that public funds are used to address the needs of Anambra’s residents. The government’s emphasis on accountability reflects a broader push for transparency in Nigerian governance, even as the political implications of the dispute persist.