By Our Correspondent
The Anambra State Government has softened its tone in its recent public exchanges concerning former governor and presidential candidate Peter Obi, with the state’s Commissioner for Information and Value Reorientation, Law Mefor, acknowledging that Obi “did well” during his tenure as governor.
The latest comment has attracted attention because it appears to mark a more conciliatory tone in the long-running public debate over Obi’s record in office and the financial position he left behind after leaving government.
Mefor, while addressing the controversy surrounding the former governor’s administration, said the Soludo administration was not seeking to discredit Obi or engage in a personal confrontation with him.
According to the commissioner, the government’s position is focused primarily on clarifying issues surrounding the finances of the state, particularly questions relating to loans and other financial obligations incurred during previous administrations.
In a significant acknowledgment of Obi’s tenure, Mefor said the former governor performed well while in office.
The statement is particularly notable given the sometimes sharp exchanges between supporters of Obi and the current administration over the former governor’s record, especially on infrastructure, investments, savings and public finances.
The latest position suggests that the Soludo administration recognises achievements recorded under previous administrations while maintaining its own interpretation of the financial commitments inherited by the state.
Despite the more conciliatory tone, the disagreement over Anambra’s finances has not disappeared.
The Soludo administration has continued to raise questions about financial obligations associated with projects and loans from previous administrations. Obi, on his part, has consistently maintained that he left office without owing salaries, pensions, gratuities or contractors whose completed work had been properly processed.
The disagreement has consequently shifted from a broad assessment of Obi’s performance to a more specific argument over how the state’s financial obligations should be understood and described.
Peter Obi governed Anambra State from 2006 to 2013 and has frequently pointed to his administration’s record in areas such as education, healthcare, infrastructure and public finance.
His supporters have continued to cite those achievements as evidence of what they regard as prudent management of public resources.
Critics, however, have questioned aspects of his investment decisions and the financial structure surrounding some projects undertaken during his tenure.
The renewed comments from the Soludo administration have therefore added another layer to the continuing debate over Obi’s legacy in Anambra.
The latest statement also comes against the background of political differences between the two men and their respective supporters.
Soludo and Obi belong to different political camps, and their supporters have occasionally clashed publicly over the performance of their administrations and the direction of Anambra politics.
Against that backdrop, the commissioner’s acknowledgment that Obi “did well as governor” represents a notably less confrontational tone.
However, the government has made it clear that recognising Obi’s achievements does not mean abandoning its questions concerning the state’s financial obligations.
The development has renewed calls for discussions about the state’s development to focus on verifiable records rather than political exchanges.
For many observers, the key issues remain how much Anambra received under successive administrations, how public funds were spent, what assets were created, and what liabilities were inherited or accumulated.
A clear presentation of official financial records could therefore provide a more concrete basis for assessing the different claims being made about the state’s finances.
The latest position from the Soludo administration can therefore be viewed as an acknowledgment of Obi’s achievements rather than a complete withdrawal of previous criticisms.
While the government now openly recognises that Obi “did well as governor,” it continues to maintain its position on outstanding financial obligations.
The development has nonetheless changed the tone of the conversation, replacing a simple political contest over who was right or wrong with a more specific debate about governance, financial records and the legacy of successive administrations.
As the discussion continues, attention is likely to remain focused on the documentary evidence behind the competing claims and on how the different administrations have contributed to Anambra State’s development.
