WHEN A PROJECT IN ANAMBRA IS NOT NECESSARILY A LOAN BORROWED BY ANAMBRA
An Oblong Media Global Investigative Analysis
There is something about this Anambra loan controversy that has been bothering me.
Too many figures are flying around. Too many projects are being listed. Too many people are shouting “loan”, “debt”, “Obi borrowed”, “Obi did not borrow”.
So I decided to ignore the political noise for a moment and look at what the institutions that actually provided some of this money recorded.
And there is a problem.
A fairly big one.
Because somewhere along the line, four completely different things appear to have been thrown into the same basket:
A project implemented in Anambra.
Money spent in Anambra.
Anambra contributing counterpart funding or assuming some project obligations.
And Anambra State itself borrowing money.
These things are not automatically the same thing.
That distinction is at the heart of this entire controversy.
START WITH MALARIA
The National Malaria Control Booster Project has been mentioned in the argument over Anambra’s historical liabilities.
Fair enough.
But what does the World Bank itself say?
Its completion documentation identifies the borrower as the Federal Government of Nigeria. It separately identifies the Federal Ministry of Health and state health institutions, including those in Anambra, as implementing agencies.
The original IDA credit was US$180 million, approved in December 2006, with additional financing subsequently approved.
Read that carefully.
Borrower: Federal Government of Nigeria.
Implementing agencies: Federal and state institutions.
Anambra’s participation is not in dispute.
What requires proof is something different: that participation should now be described as an independent loan contracted by Peter Obi’s Anambra State Government.
Those are not interchangeable propositions.
THEN THERE IS FADAMA III
Again, nobody needs to deny that Anambra participated in FADAMA.
It did.
Indeed, there was an Anambra State FADAMA III Project, complete with its own project financial management arrangements. An audit of the Anambra component identifies it as financed under an IDA credit.
But here again, the existence of an Anambra implementation structure does not, standing alone, tell us who signed the underlying sovereign financing agreement or what precise debt liability was subsequently passed down to the state.
This is precisely why we must stop arguing from project names.
Show us the financing instruments.
NOW LOOK AT EDUCATION
The State Education Program Investment Project, SEPIP, is particularly interesting.
The World Bank records the project as a US$150 million operation. Its original activities were implemented in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti.
So, yes, Anambra benefited.
Yes, Anambra implemented programme activities.
Nobody needs to rewrite history to defend Peter Obi.
But once again:
Was Anambra State the sovereign borrower of the entire international credit?
That question cannot be answered merely by pointing at schools or programme expenditure in Anambra.
There must be an agreement somewhere.
There must be a borrower.
There must be an allocated liability.
There must be repayment terms.
That paperwork is what matters.
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MAKES THE DISTINCTION EVEN CLEARER
Here the World Bank documentation becomes difficult to misunderstand.
The Community and Social Development Project began with a US$200 million IDA credit.
And the World Bank’s own completion report states that the Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, was the Borrower/Recipient, while federal and state agencies implemented the programme.
An audited project statement goes further: repayment of the credit principal and interest is described as an obligation of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
So if somebody now wishes to classify a portion of that programme as a Peter Obi loan, there is a very simple response:
Bring the subsidiary agreement.
Show where the Federal Government on-lent a specific amount to Anambra.
Show what Anambra accepted.
Show the repayment terms.
Show the outstanding balance as at 17 March 2014 when Obi left office.
That would settle it.
AND THEN WE COME TO NEWMAP
This one is particularly revealing.
The Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project, NEWMAP, was a major intervention in a state like Anambra where erosion is an existential environmental problem.
Anambra participated extensively.
Nobody disputes that.
But the World Bank records that in April 2013 the International Development Association entered into a US$600 million financing agreement with the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Not Peter Obi personally.
Not the Governor of Anambra State.
Not Anambra State as the named sovereign counterparty in that financing agreement.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The same World Bank documentation explains that the programme was multi state, with federal and state project management units. Anambra had its own State Project Management Unit.
That is almost a textbook illustration of the distinction being missed in this debate.
A state can implement an internationally financed project without automatically becoming the original borrower under the international financing agreement.
Again, that does not prove Anambra had zero financial obligation.
That would be another leap.
There may have been counterpart contributions. There may have been subsidiary arrangements. There may have been on lending agreements or state level obligations.
But if those existed, produce them.
That is the whole point.
IFAD TELLS A SIMILAR STORY
The Value Chain Development Programme was a Nigerian agricultural programme involving rice and cassava value chains.
IFAD’s own records classify it as a Nigeria programme and document substantial IFAD financing alongside contributions from national government, beneficiaries and other participants.
Anambra’s involvement in such a programme is therefore not proof, by itself, that Governor Peter Obi independently went abroad and borrowed the headline value of the programme on behalf of Anambra State.
Once again, we return to the same question:
WHO SIGNED FOR THE MONEY?
That question matters more than all the political grammar surrounding it.
THIS IS WHERE THE CURRENT ARGUMENT NEEDS TO SLOW DOWN
Let me be very clear.
I am not saying that these documents, by themselves, prove that Anambra State had no liabilities arising from any of these programmes.
That would be intellectually dishonest.
A federal government can be the principal borrower from the World Bank or IFAD and subsequently pass financial obligations to participating states through subsidiary loan agreements, on-lending arrangements, counterpart funding requirements or other mechanisms.
So there are really two layers to investigate.
Who borrowed from the international institution?
And then:
What portion, if any, was legally transferred as debt to Anambra State?
The first question is increasingly answerable from the World Bank documentation.
The second requires Anambra and the Federal Government to open the files.
And that is where this investigation should now go.
GOVERNOR SOLUDO’S GOVERNMENT CAN END THIS ARGUMENT VERY QUICKLY
There is no need for another press conference.
No need for another political spokesman.
No need for another Peter Obi supporter shouting from one side while an APGA supporter shouts from the other.
Publish the documents.
If these are genuinely debts contracted by the Peter Obi administration on behalf of Anambra State, then produce the paperwork showing:
- the loan or subsidiary financing agreement;
- the amount specifically allocated to Anambra;
- the date Anambra assumed the liability;
- who signed for Anambra;
- the repayment terms;
- what Anambra has repaid;
- what remains outstanding;
- and, crucially, the balance that existed on the day Peter Obi left office.
Once those documents are on the table, this argument becomes very short.
BECAUSE “ANAMBRA RECEIVED MONEY” IS NOT ENOUGH
This is the mistake that can completely distort public discussion of development finance.
Suppose the Federal Republic of Nigeria borrows $200 million from an international institution for a programme involving ten states.
Suppose Anambra receives projects worth $20 million.
It does not automatically follow that:
“Peter Obi borrowed $20 million.”
Maybe Anambra subsequently assumed that liability.
Maybe it did not.
Maybe there was counterpart funding.
Maybe there was an on-lending agreement.
Maybe repayment remained principally federal.
The documents determine which of those statements is true.
Not party affiliation.
Not Facebook graphics.
Not press releases.
SO HAS SOLUDO BEEN “BUSTED”?
Not quite.
And serious journalism should resist that temptation.
What the records examined so far do establish is something more useful.
They establish that several of the international programmes being discussed were structured as Nigeria wide or multi state operations in which the Federal Government/Federal Republic of Nigeria was the borrower or recipient at the international financing level, while states including Anambra participated in implementation. The Malaria Booster Project and Community and Social Development Project documentation are particularly explicit on this point.
That creates a burden of proof for anybody presenting the entire project financing as straightforward loans independently contracted by Peter Obi’s government.
Produce the second layer of documentation.
Show us where Nigeria’s liability became Anambra’s liability.
Show us how much.
Show us when.
Show us who signed.
And show us what remained unpaid when Obi handed over.
Until that is done, nobody should confuse a World Bank assisted project implemented in Anambra with proof of an Anambra State loan contracted by Peter Obi.
The difference may sound technical.
It isn’t.
It could be the difference between a legitimate historical debt and a politically convenient accounting narrative.
And that is why Oblong Media Global believes this controversy should now leave the arena of political rhetoric and enter the records room.
OPEN THE FILES.
Let the financing agreements speak.
Let the subsidiary agreements speak.
Let the audited debt schedules speak.
Let the repayment records speak.
If Peter Obi borrowed the money, the documents will show it.
If the Federal Republic of Nigeria borrowed it and Anambra merely participated in the projects, the documents will show that too.
And if the truth lies somewhere between those two positions, as development financing often does, then Nigerians deserve that truth without embellishment.
FOLLOW THE DOCUMENTS.
FOLLOW THE LIABILITY.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Everything else is politics.
Duruebube Chimazuru Nnadi-Oforgu
For
OBLONG MEDIA GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE
Intelligence
Investigation
Context
Analysis
Leave a Reply