Political economist Pat Utomi has defended Peter Obi against allegations about his age, education, criminal history and conduct while in office.
In a post, Utomi described the scrutiny of the former Anambra governor as political persecution and argued that hostility cannot substitute for evidence.
He said accusations of age falsification, certificate forgery, drug-related crimes and embezzlement had not been established against Obi.
The claims are Utomi’s assessment; the post does not provide documentary evidence for every assertion or address all public questions about Obi’s record.
The Argument About Political Hostility by Utomi
Utomi said Obi’s critics had examined his decisions and character but had not established several serious allegations against him.
He cited Obi’s reported birth date and hometown, and said the politician could produce his academic certificates if asked.
Utomi also asserted that Obi had no drug-related criminal allegations in his record or FBI files.
He said embezzlement of public funds was not part of Obi’s political record, while acknowledging that Obi was not beyond criticism.
The post’s central argument was that political attacks should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing without supporting evidence.
Utomi has previously made similar arguments in defence of Obi, saying the government had not produced credible evidence to prosecute him.
Vanguard reported his earlier comments.
That position frames the dispute as a question of evidence, but it does not independently settle every controversy surrounding the former governor.
Utomi Challenges Age and Education Claims
A recurring online claim about Obi’s age drew on a 2013 newspaper report saying he was turning 50 that year.
Fact-checkers found the report was inaccurate: Obi was born in 1961 and would have turned 52 in 2013.
The Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) found no record that Obi falsified his age or used two different birth dates.
Its fact-check explained the discrepancy.
Certificate-related claims have also circulated, including an accusation by a Labour Party faction that Obi used a certificate belonging to his brother.
A campaign spokesman rejected that allegation, while the available reporting does not establish a finding that Obi forged academic credentials.
Utomi says Obi would show his certificates if requested, but his post does not reproduce them or address the specific past allegation.
The distinction is important: a disputed accusation, a denial and an established finding are different things.
Criminal Allegations and Financial Scrutiny
Utomi also said Obi had no drug-related criminal record and was not named in FBI files, without citing records supporting that claim.
The post does not identify a specific FBI file or explain what allegation it seeks to rebut.
On public finances, Utomi’s claim that embezzlement has not been established should be distinguished from wider scrutiny of Obi’s declarations and business interests.
Premium Times has reported that the Code of Conduct Bureau is investigating Obi and other politicians over offshore assets connected to the Panama and Pandora Papers.
That reporting raises questions about asset declarations and public-office rules, but an investigation is not a finding of criminal guilt. Premium Times reported the CCB inquiry.
Separately, Obi and Anambra State officials have disputed claims about the state’s debts, finances and funds at the end of his governorship.
Those disagreements concern public explanations and records; they do not, by themselves, prove embezzlement.
Evidence, Allegations and Public Debate
The post by Utomi reflects a broader political debate about how opposition figures are scrutinised and how accusations are amplified online.
His argument is strongest where specific claims have been fact-checked or remain unproven, such as the viral claim about Obi’s age.
Other assertions, including the absence of any relevant FBI record, would require accessible documentation before they could be independently verified.
Likewise, the existence of an inquiry into offshore assets does not establish wrongdoing, but it means public discussion cannot be reduced to claims that no questions exist.
Obi’s defenders say allegations should be tested against evidence, while critics continue to challenge aspects of his political and financial record.
The available material supports a careful conclusion: some accusations have been debunked or remain unproven, while other matters are under review or publicly disputed.
Utomi’s post is therefore a political defence of Obi, rather than a comprehensive audit of every allegation or controversy.
