Lanretoye:
It's shameful that as a governor,instead of you to drive investments,you are the one investing...some people applauding him self,it shows their sense of reasoning.
The responsibility of government is to create a level ground for investors,provide infrastructures,security and enabling environment and see investors trooping and lobbying.no be to set up beer production company and say it is investment,soludobwas right to say the investments are worth next to nothing.I can't join issues with one alaba or ladipo sales boy so pls cut.God bless you for this insightful one,atleast very much more contributing than most people that doesn't know anything about economics.
Pertaining to your mention about SWF,I believe they are ventures from surpluses accrued to the government and excess revenues.they are mostly set aside to cushion macro economic effects that are not preempted.you also mentioned some state owned investments,these investments have direct effect on the economy of those states and are stimulants in the sectors they are established even though they also generate revenues for the state.we can say well about these investments in developed countries that have grown in basic capacities.

The biggest national wealth funds in the world (that of Norway and Saudi) maintain and grow their resources via multiple investments. This pattern of investing government resources in promising business ventures is widespread. That is why even Soludo does not criticise it. He is criticising the fact that it eventually lost money (fell in value).

The reality is that the invest landscape is never static: during Soludo's time as CBN head, he lauded Intercontinental and Oceanic. They had booming share prices. It would have made sense for people to invest in them then. However, they are now dead but no one will fault Soludo for praising them in their heydays. The successor Anambra government (Obiano's) should have been monitoring those investments to know when to diversify from them. Note this is all a very far cry from the usual in Nigeria: simply chopping the money instead of investing it.

It will help us all not to be naive. It is in Soludo's political interests (2-fold) for Obi not to ascend to Aso Rock on a platform other than APGA.
1. Anambra is solidly for Obi at the presidential level. The runner up for the last gubernatorial election is now in LP. Moreover, Anambra's resistance against PDP at the gubernatorial level (after their very bad governance from 1999-2003 and still present preponderance of political thug-godfathers) does not translate to LP.
2. A president of Igbo extraction now would prevent any other Igbo man (eg, Soludo) from being president for at least another 24 years from now.

I wrote a more detailed and reasoned analysis of Soludo's recent letter in a couple of places in Nairaland today. Therein, I highlighted where Soludo was wrong, where he was right and where, though starting from right facts he veered off into wrong conclusions (which favoured his effort to crush Obi as most of the political elite in Igbo land have been trying to do: not just now but even when Obi was a governor).

It is interesting to note that the so-called president to represent the Igbos is the only governor of the south east that has ever been impeached following machinations of the political elite. They couldn't even give any clear reasons for doing so which led the courts to kill the impeachment.

The sooner we all in Nigeria realise that Obi is not just a candidate for the Igbos but for all Nigeria, the sooner we will begin deconstructing the smokescreen of the political elite that are working hard towards continuing their "business as usual".

This has been posted elsewhere but still worth reading. Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo's recent piece (https://www.thecable.ng/history-beckons-and-i-will-not-be-silent-part-1/). There were multiple problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him, that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, nationwide we largely now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's reasons may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Been posted elsewhere but still worth reading. Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo's recent piece. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him, that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, nationwide we largely now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's reasons may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Been posted elsewhere but still worth reading. Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo's recent piece. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, we all now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's as may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Been posted elsewhere but still worth reading. Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, we all now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's as may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, we all now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's as may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, we all now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's as may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.

Quite long: about 8-10min reading

I read the actual text of Soludo. There were many problems with his piece but people are bashing him for the wrong reasons. They are misreading the main thrust of his write-up, one in which I—and, incidentally, Peter Obi— wholly agree with. Nevertheless, I'll first address issues with the piece, while showing where it is correct.

Despite claiming that he acknowledged the achievements of all his predecessors he did not try, in his write up, to present any sort of balance on Obi. Rather, he appeared to unearth all possible disagreements with his legacy that he could claim while failing to state any positives.

Particularly worrying would be his claim to certain statistics that directly run counter to what is known Obi achieved. For example, it is well documented that Obi improved the economic and educational metrics of the state such that, as even judged at the time by the economic teams of rival governors, he was voted the best. Thus, if things were really X bad with Obi, they were sort of X² bad with others.

He even presented his efforts (looking out also for corrections and advice to improve) in their then organised forum for accountability and better governance: the first to do so. No other governor agreed to present afterwards, thus, such laudable ongoing series was forced to die.

The metrics of education, power supply (eg, provided transformers widely among other efforts), health ( eg, water supply to primary health centres) and, overall, what was palpably experienced on the ground was clearly better at the end of his tenure than at Obiano's end. Even Obiano's signature projects —eg, the Awka flyovers he engraved with his name and the airport— were started by Obi and funded by Obi's savings: as expected, since Obi's tenure was during a more buoyant oil revenue period.

The insistence of saddling Obi with the moniker of someone who was only interested in hoarding funds is very untrue and beginning to seem a deliberate effort (particularly by an economist). Obi actually spent more on state needs from his revenue than his predecessors and successor. Had he stayed a 3rd term, the airport he had just relocated to northern Anambra would have been constructed by him and those flyovers in Awka (he had already redone Onitsha's roads and the notorious Upper Iweka: all much more than anything Obiano did road-wise). His uniqueness was in trying to conserve where expenditure (especially in cost of governance) was deemed not necessary, with an eye for investment in the future of the children of the state.

In doing so he made some mistakes. I agree with Soludo that a number of the roads Obi built for rural towns and villages were not as durable as those made by Ngige. He seems to have chosen road options that would bear light vehicles transporting farm produce from such places to towns for sale. The breakdown of the major federal roads made most heavy traffic divert to such new and good roads so they degraded faster than planned. Despite this, they lasted 7-10 years.

Someone once told me that the most important issue in building a structure is committing oneself to the maintenance one's initial choice for the structure would demand. Just as he first built those roads out of virtually no roads, he would have been very well capable of maintaining them as due. Unfortunately, the time for their maintenance started occuring largely in the middle of Obiano's time, who simply neglected them to completely fall apart. Despite it being possible that a better option could have been reached, the most important thing here is that Obi had a plan and executed it fairly, a plan that did not deprive his people of their resources in any way. Moreover, his humility helps him learn from substandard situations.

Similarly, I am befuddled by what metric is Soludo claiming the jump in poverty under Obi and a significant shrinking by Obiano's end? I am not an economist but it is only the opposite I experienced in my wide interactions within my state. This could be one of those situations where one users an unnatural metric to extrapolate: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). A present-day one is that from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which says Nigeria's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices grew by 3.11 per cent in quarter one of 2022 on a year-on-year basis. Does this seems to indicate that we are 3.11% better than last year? Is this what is actually being felt on the ground? Why people are running out of the country faster now than ever before? Bear in mind that even the "almighty" NNPC has not been remitting anything to the states.

The problems with Soludo's piece are why many consider this saga to simply be yet another step the political elite are taking to crush the groundswell threatening to disturb their "business as usual". This is also the main reason Obi keeps travelling around to speak with them: to ensure they, at best, be neutral instead of working assiduously against him. He will need all hands on deck (one way or another) to help reverse the sinking ship that is Nigeria.

Let us not forget that the only reason Obi became governor is the personal conviction of Ojukwu in his person. Ojukwu, after interacting with him, declared him as the man to lead our people forward. I remember him begging Ndi Anambra that he was an old man soon to pass on but that they should do this for him, that one time, because they were really doing it for themselves and their children. Despite all that, it was Ngige's falling out with the PDP godfather, and refusing Abuja's directive to make up with him that enabled Obi to prevail at court. Obi was then impeached by the elite (but saved, again, by the courts) when they could not resurrect their business as usual.

Good arguments, some already given by Soludo, can be given for it being better for Obi to have stayed put in that one party: APGA. However, other good arguments can be made for the opposite, especially for someone hoping to do good at Aso Rock. Why should someone —a real businessman— persist in a venture that had no hope of success, simply because it is an Igbo party, a success that is not supposed to be for the Igbo people alone? In fact, for simply being APGA, most in other parts of the country would not have voted it. Labour is clearly tribe agnostic (for now). It also lacks the bad history of PDP. So, if APGA can only win in Anambra —a state that Soludo even agrees Obi in Labour is likely to win it's presidential votes— contesting on the APGA's platform will be a minus nationwide where it lacks Labour's clean slate. The only place APGA has formidable structure is Anambra. Moreover, Labour connects an aspirant with all public workers and Labour activists nationwide who, with the aggrieved youth, give one a much more credible 3rd way than APGA ever could. Obi then buttressed it all by explicitly telling people not to vote for him if it is simply because he is Igbo.

I also agree, in a large part, with Soludo's assessment of the quest for Igbo presidency and the lack of long-term strategy by Ndi Igbo. This is borne out of the understandable desire to have some from the SE rule in turn with others: very difficult due to not being enshrined by law and low overall voting clout. Unfortunately, we all now have a culture of turn-by-turn chopping or turn-by-turn development through one's town's man at the top. For example, this is how Enugu State now runs. However, as said earlier, saddling Obi with merely a realisation of Igbo rule —however laudable one's as may be— is myopic, stunting and not what he presently stands for. So all that assessment is irrelevant.

I agree with Soludo's knock on Obi's investment of state funds in a business of which he was a member of its board. It raises ethical questions. However, remember who we are talking about and you see its consistency with his erstwhile actions. He is a trader who deals with what he knows, even when trying to act selflessly. He returned to Missionary systems for previously missionary schools because he knew them to run well when they had them. He, seeing some surpluses in state funds, wanted to invest them in structures he had personally experienced and believed were on an upward trajectory, so much so that if the state ended up losing money, he too will lose money because his money was there too. In fact, their value only started to dip following the overall distress businesses were experiencing (more businesses failing) during Obiano's latter years. It first proves that there was more poverty during Obiano and, secondly that Obiano's economic team should have been monitoring the investments to know when to sell them and buy other upwardly mobile shares. Nothing stays permanent.

All the above not withstanding, many Obi supporters are acting like the present day Western "progressives" who do not allow others to have a point of view different from theirs without trying to bury them. That is wrong. Live and let live. Engage their points and, if you both remain with your initial convictions, simply agree to disagree. Even inconceivably worse are those who try to harm Soludo (or anyone else) who simply disagrees that Obi is the right option.

Now to be clear, this is not in any way the fault of Obi. It is a groundswell of frustrations of people seeing their future evaporate and, thus flailing and grasping out for a support. It is well known that one has to be very careful (and, better, trained!) before trying to rescue a drowning man. His desperation may sink you too. See the widespread protest in Iran. Their corruption is no where near ours but see the reactions. If there was even a modicum of opposition leader there, would it not have been false to saddle him with the responsibility of violent protests, simply because he is seen as an alternative to the rulers?

Obi himself has announced to his supporters the need for moderation and respect multiple times (as is well evident in his person). In fact, there is absolutely no evidence anyone can present that shows Obi egging anyone on. So, how can he, in good conscience, be saddled with the responsibility of the actions of drowning men, men being drowned by the effects of successive PDP and APC leaders?

In any case, please let us be civil. Thank you for the patience to read this very long piece.