Flood: Senate directs emergency interventions in Anambra, Imo, others

The dispute concerns how Anambra’s external financing should be measured and assigned. The state government links eight facilities to projects during Obi’s tenure and says about N127.4 billion remained outstanding as of June 30, 2026. Obi says that presentation does not show what was approved, what was actually drawn, or when the money was used.

Obi said he never directly borrowed from a financial institution or issued a bond for Anambra during his eight years in office. He argued that some facilities were development programmes arranged through multilateral institutions and the Federal Government. He also said some drawdowns happened after he left office in March 2014.

The state says the facilities are still serviced with public funds. Obi says his administration left no unpaid salaries, pensions, gratuities, or verified contractor bills. The competing accounts mean the state’s financial legacy depends on reconciling facility approvals, drawdowns, balances and dates.

The Anambra Government says eight external financing facilities associated with projects during Obi’s tenure had an original value of $123.77 million. It says $92.35 million remained outstanding as of June 30, 2026. The article gives the naira equivalent of that outstanding balance as about N127.4 billion.

These figures describe different stages of the financing. The original value is the total associated with the eight facilities. The outstanding amount is the balance the government says remained unpaid at the stated date. It is not automatically the same as the amount approved, drawn, spent, or inherited at handover.

That distinction is central to Obi’s objection. He says the state’s presentation treats the facilities or their current balances as debt left by him without identifying drawdowns and dates. The state maintains that the facilities continue to be serviced from public funds, keeping the issue politically and financially active.

An approved facility is a financing amount a lender or programme authorises for possible use. Approval creates access to funds, but it does not prove that the government received or spent the entire amount. This matters because describing the full approval as inherited debt can exaggerate the obligation.

A drawdown is money actually released and taken from the facility. Obi used a hypothetical example: a government might receive approval for N10 billion but draw only N500 million. In that case, he argued, it should not be described as owing the entire N10 billion. The outstanding balance is the portion of money actually drawn that remains unpaid after repayments or other adjustments.

For Anambra, the state’s cited $123.77 million original value, $92.35 million outstanding balance and the timing of drawdowns are separate questions. Accurate accounting must identify each amount and connect it to the relevant period.

The timing matters because responsibility should follow when funds were actually accessed and obligations were created, not merely when a facility was approved. A facility connected to a project during one administration might be drawn in stages over several years. Later drawdowns could therefore create or increase obligations after a governor has left office.

Obi said some Anambra facilities were drawn after he left office in March 2014. He argued that each drawdown must be identified before assigning the resulting debt. His point is that an approved facility may remain unused, or only partly used, at handover. The government that later accesses funds may account for that borrowing in its period.

The state’s reported balance is dated June 30, 2026, more than 12 years after Obi left office. That gap makes the timeline important. Reconstructing approvals, releases, repayments and balances could clarify which administration incurred each obligation.

Concessional multilateral loans are development financing arranged through international institutions, usually with more favourable terms than ordinary commercial borrowing. The article describes them as concessionary multilateral support for public programmes. Such financing is tied to development goals and may involve governments and participating states rather than a state simply approaching a bank for a commercial loan.

Obi cited the State Education Programme Investment Project. He said Anambra, Ekiti and Bauchi were selected because of their education performance, with support involving institutions such as the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. He contrasted that arrangement with directly borrowing from a bank.

The distinction matters because the financing’s structure affects how the obligation is described. Obi says these programmes should not automatically be presented as conventional debt he personally borrowed. However, the state says the facilities remain serviced from public funds, so their eventual financial impact still matters.

The financing linked to Anambra’s development projects involved international institutions and government partners. Obi named the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. He also described arrangements involving the Federal Government and participating states. This structure differs from a state independently approaching a commercial bank.

The clearest example was the State Education Programme Investment Project. Obi said Anambra was selected alongside Ekiti and Bauchi because the three states were considered to be doing well in education. The project then received concessionary multilateral support. His explanation presents the financing as a coordinated development programme rather than a single state-level borrowing decision.

The article does not identify every party’s precise legal role in each facility. It does establish that international institutions, the Federal Government and participating states were involved. That network is important for tracing approvals, drawdowns and repayment responsibilities before assigning the entire current balance to one administration.

Public accounting records matter because they provide a timeline for what was approved, borrowed, drawn, repaid and still owed. Without matching those categories and dates, a current balance can be wrongly attributed to an earlier administration. The record must distinguish a facility’s total value from money actually received and the balance remaining later.

Obi cited Debt Management Office records showing Anambra’s external debt at about $18 million when he assumed office in March 2006 and about $30 million when he left in March 2014. He questioned how the newer $123.77 million facility figure could be presented as the debt he left behind. He also referred to former DMO Director-General Abraham Nwankwo’s statement about his borrowing record.

The records therefore need reconciliation, not just comparison of headline figures. Matching facility documents with DMO data and drawdown dates could clarify the financial legacy. Until then, the state and Obi retain competing accounts of responsibility.