TD Governor Charles Chukwuma Soludo has once again attempted to smear former Governor Peter Obi by claiming that Obi saddled Anambra State with eight external loans totaling $123.77 million.
In his bid to paint Obi as reckless with debt, Soludo listed projects such as FADAMA and NEWMAP as loans contracted by the state government.
But a closer look at the facts reveals that these facilities were federal government programs, negotiated with the World Bank and extended to all 36 states and the FCT.
Soludo’s presentation is not only misleading, but also mischievous with numbers.
By lumping together the original amounts of eight multilateral financing facilities, he presented them as though they were Obi’s personal borrowings.
The official Debt Management Office (DMO) record tells a different story: as of December 31, 2013, just months after Obi left office, Anambra’s total external debt stock stood at $30.32 million—not $123.77 million.
FADAMA and NEWMAP: Federal Programs, Not Obi’s Loans
The Third National FADAMA Development Project (2008) was a World Bank agricultural support program procured by the federal government and distributed nationwide.
It was interest-free and designed to boost rural farming productivity. To call this Obi’s loan is a distortion.
Similarly, the Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP, 2013) were federal initiative targeting erosion-prone states.
Anambra, like other states, was a beneficiary. Obi did not negotiate or contract this loan; it was federally arranged.
Everyone in Anambra during Obi’s tenure remembers the impact of FADAMA and NEWMAP in agriculture and environmental protection.
If Obi had adopted the current mentality of Soludo — rejecting federally provided facilities — Anambra would have missed out entirely.
NG-Cares Blunder by Soludo
The irony is that under Soludo, Anambra became the only state in Nigeria to pull out of NG-Cares, a federal program designed to support farmers and small businesses.
Soludo initially rejected NG-Cares, claiming it was a loan, only to later discover it was a grant.
By then, Anambra had lost the opportunity.
This episode exposes the flaw in Soludo’s approach: an over-bloated ego more interested in headlines than in impact.
His rejection of NG-Cares left Anambra behind while other states advanced.
Dissecting the Eight Loans Claimed by Soludo: Facts vs. Misrepresentation
Let us examine the eight projects Soludo cites:
- Malaria Control Booster Project (2007)
- Third National FADAMA Development Project (2008)
- Health System Development Project II (2009)
- Malaria Control Booster Project (Additional Financing, 2009)
- State Education Programme Investment Project (2010)
- Community and Social Development Project (2009)
- NEWMAP (2013)
- Value Chain Development Project (2013)
1. Malaria Control Booster Project (2007)
- Nature: A World Bank–supported health intervention program.
- Reality: This was a federal government facility extended to states to strengthen malaria control.
- States did not individually negotiate or “take” these loans; they were beneficiaries of a national program.
- This project was financed through a US$180 million IDA credit from the World Bank to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not Anambra State.
- The credit was approved in December 2006 and became effective on May 15, 2007.
- Anambra was one of seven participating states (others included Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, and Rivers).
- Verdict: The borrower was the Federal Government, not Anambra State.
2. Third National FADAMA Development Project (2008)
- Nature: A World Bank agricultural support program designed to boost rural farming and productivity.
- Reality: FADAMA was interest-free and federally procured, then distributed to states.
- It was not a loan Obi personally contracted.
- Implication for Obi: This is the clearest example of Soludo’s misrepresentation.
- World Bank/IDA documentation clearly identifies the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the borrower.
- The project was approved in 2008, with a financing envelope of US$250 million covering 2008–2013.
- Anambra participated under the Fadama III State Project, financed through IDA Credit No. 45960.
- To describe this as “a loan taken by Anambra State Government in 2007” is misleading.
- Verdict: The borrowing was federal; states were beneficiaries. The borrower was the Federal Government, not Anambra State.
3. Health System Development Project II (2009)
- Nature: A World Bank health sector strengthening initiative.
- Reality: Like malaria control, this was federally negotiated and extended to states.
- Records show the original Health Systems Development Project was signed in 2003 with an allocation of XDR 4.83 million and a 0.75% service charge.
- The 2009 reference relates to additional financing under HSDP II.
- Anambra implemented activities under this World Bank–assisted program, but the borrowing was federal.
- Verdict: An FG project benefiting Anambra. The 2009 financing was an extension of the 2003 agreement.
4. Malaria Control Booster Project (Additional Financing, 2009)
- Nature: Continuation of the earlier malaria program.
- Reality: Same as above—federally arranged, not state-originated.
- Verdict: The borrower was the Federal Government, not Anambra State.
5. State Education Programme Investment Project (SEPIP) (2010)
- Nature: World Bank–backed education sector investment.
- Reality: This was structured as part of Nigeria’s broader education reform financing.
- States were beneficiaries, not independent borrowers.
- SEPIP was financed through a US$150 million IDA credit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Credit No. 5220-NG, dated April 16, 2013).
- Funds were disbursed to Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti via subsidiary agreements.
- Verdict: The borrower was the Federal Government, not Anambra State.
6. Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) (2009)
- Nature: World Bank social safety net program.
- Reality: Federally procured, states implemented.
- Effective February 2009, this project was backed by an IDA commitment of SDR 121.5 million (US$200 million equivalent).
- The borrower was the Federal Government. Anambra was one of several participating states.
- Verdict: FG was the borrower; Anambra was a beneficiary.
7. Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP, 2013)
- Nature: World Bank environmental intervention targeting erosion control.
- Reality: NEWMAP was a federal government loan extended to erosion-prone states like Anambra.
- Approved in May 2012 and effective September 2013, NEWMAP was financed through a US$600 million IDA credit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
- Anambra had its own State Project Management Unit (SPMU) but operated under the federal credit.
- Verdict: FG was the borrower, not Anambra State.
8. Value Chain Development Project (2013)
- Nature: Agricultural value chain financing, World Bank–supported.
- Reality: Again, federally procured and distributed to states.
- Implication for Obi: Not Obi’s borrowing; it was a federal agricultural program.
- Approved by IFAD in April 2012 and signed in August 2012, the programme became effective in October 2013.
- Financing included an IFAD loan of US$74.4 million, an IFAD grant of US$0.5 million, plus counterpart contributions from FG, participating states, LGAs, and beneficiaries.
- The loan agreement was between FGN and IFAD.
- Anambra was one of six participating states (others included Benue, Ebonyi, Niger, Ogun, and Taraba).
- Verdict: FG was the borrower, not Anambra State.
Final Analysis
Across all eight projects, the consistent pattern is clear: the Federal Government of Nigeria was the borrower in agreements with the World Bank or IFAD.
States like Anambra were implementing partners and beneficiaries, not independent borrowers.
For Soludo to present these federally financed programs as “loans taken by Peter Obi’s administration” is misleading.
The official Debt Management Office (DMO) records confirm that Anambra’s external debt stock stood at $30.32 million as of December 31, 2013, not the inflated $123.77 million figure being circulated.
In truth, Obi’s government administered projects funded by federal loans, but did not independently contract them. The attempt to frame these as Obi’s borrowings is a distortion of fact.
The Mischief in the Numbers Presented by Soludo
The administration of Soludo added the original amounts of these eight facilities and presented the total—$123.77 million—as Obi’s debt legacy.
This is deceptive. Several of these facilities were disbursed over time, including after Obi had already left office.
For example, the Value Chain Development Programme did not record its first disbursement until September 2014, six months after Obi’s exit.
The official DMO record is clear: Anambra’s external debt stock was $30.32 million at the end of 2013.
That figure, not Soludo’s inflated $123.77 million, reflects the reality.
Soludo: Why the Claim Falters and the Bigger Picture
Governor Soludo’s attempt to frame these loans as Obi’s borrowings ignores the structure of Nigeria’s external financing.
States are implementing partners, not originators, of World Bank loans. The federal government negotiates, and states benefit.
By misrepresenting federal programs as Obi’s loans, Soludo undermines his own credibility.
His rejection of NG-Cares shows what happens when a governor refuses to accept federally provided facilities: the state loses out.
Obi, by contrast, embraced FADAMA and NEWMAP, ensuring Anambra benefitted.
- Total Loan Amount Signed (2007–2013): $123.77 million.
- Outstanding Balance (June 2026): $92.35 million (₦127.4 billion).
- Key Point: These loans were federal programs negotiated by Nigeria with the World Bank, then allocated to states.
They were not discretionary borrowings by Peter Obi as governor.
Conclusion on the Claims by Soludo
Of the eight loans cited, none were directly contracted by Peter Obi.
They were federal government loans from the World Bank, extended to states for sectoral projects in health, education, agriculture, erosion control, and community development.
The attempt by Governor Soludo to frame these loans as Obi’s personal borrowings ignores the structure of Nigeria’s external financing.
States are implementing partners, not originators, of World Bank loans.
The FADAMA project alone exposes the weakness of Soludo’s argument: it was interest-free, federally arranged, and distributed nationwide.
At best, Obi oversaw their implementation in Anambra; at worst, Soludo’s claim is a political distortion aimed at discrediting Obi.
The truth is simple: Peter Obi left Anambra with one of the lowest debt profiles in Nigeria.
Soludo’s attempt to rewrite history collapses under the weight of official records and common sense.
Thus, while Anambra continues to service portions of these obligations through federal deductions, it is misleading to claim that Peter Obi “took” these loans.
He administered programs funded by them, but he did not negotiate or contract them independently.
