Why Is Soludo Always Dragging Peter Obi?

There is a question that increasingly begs for an answer in the seemingly endless political quarrel between Anambra State Governor, Professor Chukwuma Soludo, and his predecessor, Peter Obi: “Why is Soludo always dragging Peter Obi?”

Is it simply about accountability? Is it about correcting what Soludo considers a false narrative about Anambra's finances? Or, as some Nigerians have begun to ask, is there something deeper, perhaps political rivalry, resentment or even jealousy? That question becomes more difficult to dismiss when the latest controversy over what Obi left behind in Anambra is examined against statements made by people who were in a position to know.

Obi has consistently maintained that he left substantial funds for his successor, Willie Obiano, when he left office in 2014. The claim has repeatedly been disputed by political opponents and officials of subsequent administrations.

But here is where the matter becomes interesting. Obiano himself, in a 2017 television interview, said that Obi left “N9 billion in cash and N25.6 billion in what he described as sovereign wealth funds and shares in other banks”. In other words, whatever disagreements may exist over the exact composition and value of the assets, the claim that Obi left absolutely nothing in the state's kitty does not sit comfortably with Obiano's own account.

In a similar vein, Alex Otti, the governor of Abia State, has said that in 2017, when he was then the Managing Director of Diamond Bank, that he could confirm that Obi left “$50 million each in Diamond Bank, Fidelity Bank and Access Bank”. He explained that he was in a position to know because he was chairman of Diamond Bank at the time Obi was governor.

Five years later, in December 2022, Otti again stated that Obi left at least “$155 million” for his successor and explained that he had been involved in helping Obi secure Eurobonds. He further said some of the investments had maturities extending into 2023. These are not insignificant statements.

Otti was not speaking as an anonymous social-media commentator. He was speaking as a banker who said he had direct institutional knowledge of some of the transactions.

So, when the Soludo administration now repeatedly brings up Obi's financial record, Nigerians are entitled to ask a simple question: “Where is the complete documentary evidence that settles the matter?”

The latest controversy erupted after Anambra's Commissioner for Finance, Izuchukwu Okafor, said Soludo's administration was still repaying loans associated with previous administrations, including Obi's. The state government subsequently released records which it said showed outstanding external loans traced to projects undertaken during Obi's tenure. Obi rejected the allegation and challenged Soludo's administration to prove that he left the state owing money. There is therefore a legitimate accounting question that deserves a clean answer. But there is also another question. “Why does Soludo appear so persistently interested in Peter Obi's political and administrative record?”

Soludo did not inherit power directly from Obi. Willie Obiano did. Soludo became governor eight years after Obi left office. Yet Obi's name continues to feature prominently whenever the Soludo administration discusses Anambra's past. That naturally raises curiosity. Could it be because Obi's record has become an inconvenient benchmark against which subsequent administrations are measured? Could it be because Obi remains one of the most nationally visible political figures to emerge from Anambra? Or could political competition be playing a larger role than either side is prepared to admit?

And, yes, Nigerians may legitimately ask the uncomfortable question: “Is Soludo jealous of Peter Obi?” That is not a fact that anyone can establish merely from political exchanges. It would be irresponsible to pronounce jealousy as the explanation for another person's conduct without evidence of motive. But asking the question is legitimate when the public repeatedly sees one political figure attacking, challenging or seeking to discredit another. After all, Obi is no longer a contestant for Soludo's seat as governor of Anambra. His political ambition is national. Soludo's political responsibilities are primarily connected to the governance of Anambra. Why, therefore, does the former governor remain such a recurring subject of political controversy? The answer should not be found in speculation. It should be found in documents.

If Obi left debts, let the relevant loan agreements, disbursements, repayments and outstanding balances be published in a manner that ordinary Anambra citizens can understand. If he left money, let the bank records, investment certificates, maturity dates and handover documents establish precisely what was left, where it was left and what happened to it afterwards. That would end the argument.

Indeed, Obi has now challenged the Soludo administration to prove its allegations, including his claim that an ecological fund of more than N2 billion remained intact in a First Bank account when he left office. He even said he would stop his presidential campaign if his claim could be disproved. That challenge puts the ball squarely in the court of those making the contrary claims.

There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing the record of a former governor. In fact, public officials should be scrutinized. But scrutiny should be based on evidence, not political repetition. And this is precisely where Soludo's repeated engagement with Obi deserves scrutiny of its own.

If the governor has evidence that conclusively disproves Obi's financial claims, he should publish it. If he has evidence showing that Obi left substantial debts, he should publish it. But if evidence exists that Obi left significant financial assets for his successor, as Obiano's own statement and Otti's banking testimony suggest, then Nigerians deserve an equally clear explanation of what those assets were, where they went and how they were accounted for.

Ultimately, the issue should not be whether Soludo likes Obi or dislikes him. It should not even be whether Obi likes Soludo. The issue is whether the public record can withstand forensic scrutiny. And while that is being established, one question will probably continue to hang over this increasingly personal-looking political exchange: “Why is Soludo always dragging Peter Obi?”

Until the governor provides a convincing answer, Nigerians will continue to ask whether this is merely about Anambra's accounts, or whether there is something more personal and political behind the relentless battle of words. And if it is neither rivalry nor jealousy, then the easiest way to silence such speculation is not by another attack on Obi. It is by producing the documents.