Can a Professor Get the Numbers This Wrong? The $123.7 Billion Peter Obi Debt Claim Under the Microscope
There are political arguments, and then there are numbers that should stop an argument in its tracks.
A fresh controversy over Anambra's debt record has produced one such number: $123.7 billion.
The figure has been attributed to a claim concerning former Anambra Governor Peter Obi's borrowing during his tenure, with the argument being used in the continuing political battle over Obi's record as governor.
But before turning the controversy into another political shouting match, there is a basic question that needs to be answered:
Does the number correspond to the publicly available debt records?
Based on the historical data available from Nigeria's Debt Management Office (DMO), the answer appears to be no.
And that makes the episode particularly remarkable because the person at the centre of the controversy is not an ordinary political commentator.
He is Professor Chukwuma Soludo, an economist who served as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria before becoming Governor of Anambra State.
That is precisely why the alleged figure deserves more than a social-media argument.
It deserves arithmetic.
Start with the DMO's own records
The DMO's historical data for Nigerian states provide a very different picture of Anambra's indebtedness.
As of 31 December 2013, the DMO recorded Anambra's external debt at $30,323,574.40.
That is approximately $30.3 million.
Not $30 billion.
Not $123.7 billion.
$30.3 million.
The distinction is not cosmetic.
$123.7 billion is more than 4,000 times the $30.3 million external-debt figure recorded for Anambra at the end of 2013.
That alone should force anyone making a claim of $123.7 billion to explain exactly what the number represents.
Was it naira converted incorrectly?
Was it cumulative expenditure?
Was it the value of projects?
Was it a national debt figure?
Was it the total borrowing of multiple governments?
Or was a decimal point, currency denomination or unit simply lost somewhere in the argument?
Without that explanation, the number cannot sensibly be presented as Anambra's borrowing.The viral argument goes further by comparing the alleged $123.7 billion attributed to Obi's Anambra administration with Nigeria's broader public debt.
That comparison creates an obvious mathematical problem.
Anambra is one state in a federation of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
For a single state governor to have borrowed $123.7 billion in 2013 would require an extraordinary documentary trail.
There would need to be loan agreements, creditor records, legislative approvals, debt-service obligations and corresponding entries in official debt statistics.
The DMO exists precisely to maintain and publish information concerning Nigeria's public debt.
Its historical state-level data do not show anything remotely approaching $123.7 billion for Anambra.
Instead, the DMO's 2013 table lists $30.323 million in external debt for the state.
That does not establish that Anambra had no other liabilities.
It establishes something much narrower—and much more important:
The $123.7 billion figure cannot simply be substituted for the state's recorded external debt without explaining the difference.
But there is another side to the story
This is where political propaganda can become dangerous.
Disproving one exaggerated figure does not automatically prove every claim made by Peter Obi about his financial record.
There have been longstanding disputes over what Obi inherited, what his administration borrowed, what it owed contractors and what he left for his successor, Willie Obiano.
A 2025 fact-check by The Guardian found that the claim that Obi left Anambra with no debt was false. It cited DMO figures showing that Anambra had $30.323 million in external debt as of December 31, 2013, alongside domestic liabilities.
That is an important distinction.
The evidence does not support the simplistic claim that "Obi borrowed $123.7 billion."
But neither does it support the equally simplistic claim that "Obi left absolutely no debt."
The real numbers are more complicated.
And that is precisely why political leaders should publish the underlying documents rather than throwing enormous figures into political debates.
Anambra's debt has continued beyond Obi
The current administration itself has acknowledged that Anambra continues to service obligations inherited from previous administrations.
In September 2026, Anambra's Finance Commissioner, Izuchukwu Okafor, said the Soludo administration had not borrowed from commercial banks since taking office but was still servicing loans inherited from previous governments. He said deductions were being made from the state's Federation Account allocations to service those obligations.
That admission is significant.
It means the debate cannot honestly be reduced to:
"Obi borrowed nothing."
Nor can it be reduced to:
"Obi borrowed $123.7 billion."
The responsible question is:
Exactly what liabilities did each administration inherit, incur, repay and transfer?
That requires a complete debt ledger.
So where could $123.7 billion possibly come from?
This is the part that needs clarification from whoever made the claim.
The DMO's 2013 figure is denominated in US dollars and places Anambra's external debt at about $30.3 million.
If somebody says the state borrowed $123.7 billion, they need to identify the source document.
Not a speech.
Not a social-media graphic.
Not a political attack.
The actual debt instrument.
Who was the creditor?
When was the loan approved?
How much was disbursed?
What was the interest rate?
What was the maturity period?
What institution recorded it?
What was the debt balance at handover?
And where does it appear in the DMO's historical records?
Those are straightforward questions.
If the number is correct, the documentation should be enormous.
If the documentation does not exist, then the figure needs to be withdrawn or corrected.
Being a professor makes the standard higher
The temptation in political discourse is to respond to an apparent numerical error with insults.
But the more interesting issue is not whether someone should be called "dumb."
It is why a highly credentialed public official would allow an apparently extraordinary number to enter a political argument without immediately showing the underlying evidence.
A professor of economics is expected to understand the difference between:
million and billion;
naira and dollars;
debt stock and borrowing;
annual borrowing and cumulative liabilities;
state debt and federal debt;
and outstanding debt versus total financial obligations.
These distinctions are not academic trivia.
They determine whether a public statement is meaningful.
A mistake involving a few percentage points can happen in complicated economic analysis.
A claim that a Nigerian state borrowed $123.7 billion when the DMO's 2013 external-debt record shows about $30.3 million is a fundamentally different problem.
The gap is so enormous that the first response should be verification.
The burden of proof belongs to the person making the extraordinary claim
This is ultimately bigger than Peter Obi and Soludo.
Nigeria has a chronic problem with political numbers being used as weapons.
One politician announces how much money he supposedly saved.
Another announces how much debt his predecessor allegedly accumulated.
A third produces a different figure.
The public is then expected to choose which politician sounds more convincing.
That is not accountability.
The solution is remarkably simple:
Publish the records.
If Soludo's administration says Obi borrowed a particular amount, publish the loan agreements.
If Obi says he left particular savings, publish the bank statements, investment certificates and audited accounts.
If Anambra is still servicing inherited loans, publish the debt schedule.
Show the principal.
Show the interest.
Show the creditor.
Show the date.
Show the amount disbursed.
Show what remains outstanding.
Then Nigerians can judge the record from evidence rather than competing political narratives.
The $123.7 billion claim should therefore be treated as a data question
The available DMO evidence gives us a solid starting point.
At the end of 2013, Anambra's recorded external debt was $30.323 million.
Independent fact-checking has also established that Anambra did have debt and that claims portraying the state as completely debt-free under Obi were misleading.
And the present Anambra government acknowledges that it continues to service inherited obligations.
So there are legitimate questions about Peter Obi's debt record.
But $123.7 billion requires a completely different level of evidence.
Until the documentation behind that figure is produced, it sits in obvious conflict with the official historical DMO figure for Anambra's external debt.
And perhaps that is the real lesson from this controversy.
A professor can make a mistake.
A governor can make a mistake.
A presidential candidate can make a mistake.
But when public officials are discussing billions of dollars of public money, the cure for political argument is not another political argument. It is the ledger.
Numbers should be checked.
Sources should be published.
And extraordinary claims should come with extraordinary documentation.
Comments
Post a Comment