On the surface, the “failure” tag hinges on two major pillars: poverty rates and infrastructure. Critics like Onanuga point to NBS data from 2010, which showed Anambra’s poverty rate climbing to 53.7%—an increase from the roughly 41% recorded before he took office. For the Presidency, this is the “smoking gun” that suggests Obi’s famous frugality actually choked the local economy. However, supporters argue that this was a national trend at the time, and they point to the fact that Obi left office with the state ranked among the top in educational performance (WAEC rankings) and healthcare metrics, famously clearing years of pension arrears that had crippled the civil service.
The most heated part of this clash involves the “savings” controversy. Obi has long claimed he handed over N75 billion in cash and investments (including $156 million in sovereign bonds) to his successor, Willie Obiano. While the Presidency dismisses this as “ghost money” that didn’t translate to roads or bridges, financial records show that Obi did indeed leave the state with zero debt to commercial banks—a rare feat in Nigerian politics. The debate now boils down to a fundamental disagreement on leadership: Is a governor successful because he saves for the future, or has he failed because he didn’t spend every kobo on visible “cement and mortar” projects today?
As the 2027 political cycle looms, this isn’t just a history lesson; it’s a battle for the narrative of what “good governance” looks like. Onanuga’s “copycat” and “failure” labels are clearly designed to deconstruct Obi’s image as an economic wizard before the next election. Meanwhile, the “Obidient” camp remains unmoved, viewing the attack as a sign that the current administration is threatened by Obi’s “homegrown” philosophy of prudence. In the court of public opinion, the verdict is still out, but the numbers suggest a legacy that is far more complex than a simple “pass” or “fail.”
