The political landscape of Anambra State has witnessed significant turbulence since Charles Soludo assumed the governorship on March 17, 2022 and is presently seeking a second term.At the center of this storm lies a critical question: Is former Governor Willie Obiano, who served the state from 2014 to 2022, still a relevant force in Anambra politics? The answer to this question requires a deep examination of the complex relationship between Obiano and his chosen successor, a relationship that has evolved from political partnership to what many observers now describe as bitter estrangement from which the opposition now seeks to capitalise on, whilst Soludo’s fixers are running helter skelter seeking to salvage.
Willie Obiano’s decision to back Charles Soludo for the governorship was not a casual political calculation. Against considerable pressure from various quarters within the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and beyond, Obiano stood firmly behind Soludo’s candidacy, not once did he flinch in his resolve to make the former CBN governor his successor. Obiano didn’t merely endorse Soludo; he staked his entire political capital on the economics professor’s success, against the odds and veiled threats, Obiano headed Soludo’s campaign council and deployed both financial resources and political machinery to secure victory for his chosen successor.
This commitment came at considerable personal and political cost. Other aspirants within APGA had their own claims to the ticket, and Obiano’s insistence on Soludo created rifts within the party structure. Yet, the former governor remained resolute, believing that Soludo’s technocratic credentials and international exposure would translate into transformational governance for Anambra State. It was a gamble that appeared to pay off when Soludo emerged victorious in the November 2021 gubernatorial election.
However, the post-election relationship between the two men has been anything but smooth. What should have been a seamless transition between political allies quickly deteriorated into a relationship characterized by mutual suspicion and public disagreements. The seeds of discord were planted almost immediately after Soludo’s inauguration, when the new governor began a systematic critique of his predecessor’s administration at every given opportunity.
Perhaps the most damaging blow to the Obiano-Soludo relationship came barely a week after the inauguration. In a television interview with a Nigerian TV station, Soludo painted a grim picture of Anambra’s finances, claiming he inherited a debt burden of approximately N109 billion with only between N300 million and N400 million in cash reserves. This public revelation was seen by Obiano’s supporters as an unnecessary attack on the former governor’s legacy, particularly given that Soludo had previously praised the Obiano administration as one that was “not broken and thus needed no fixing.”
The irony was not lost on political observers. During his campaign, Soludo had been effusive in his praise for Obiano’s achievements, positioning himself as a continuity candidate who would build upon existing foundations. The sudden shift in narrative after assuming office left many questioning the sincerity of his earlier pronouncements and created the impression that Soludo was attempting to distance himself from his benefactor’s record and denigrate such.
Obiano’s treatment at the hands of his successor stands in stark contrast to established patterns of political relationships in Nigerian politics. When one examines comparable situations across the country, the Anambra case appears particularly harsh. The relationship between former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and his successor Siminalayi Fubara, despite its recent tensions, began with mutual respect and acknowledgment. Similarly, even in cases where political relationships soured, such as between Adams Oshiomhole Godwin Obaseki in Edo State, or the complex dynamics between the Uba brothers and Chris Ngige in Anambra’s own history, there was typically an initial period of cooperation and mutual recognition.
In the American political system, which Nigeria often seeks to emulate, former presidents and governors maintain significant influence and are regularly consulted by their successors. The institutional memory and experience of former executives are considered valuable assets rather than liabilities to be discarded. Former presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama continue to play meaningful roles in American political discourse, regardless of party affiliations.
Obiano’s supporters argue that as a former governor he deserves similar consideration. Having successfully governed Anambra for eight years and having been instrumental in Soludo’s emergence, it is believed that the former governor had expected to maintain some level of input in the administration’s direction. This expectation seems reasonable when viewed against global best practices and the recognition that governance is often a collaborative effort that benefits from institutional memory and continuity.
One cannot discuss Obiano’s relevance without acknowledging the complex nature of his own governance style. In time past, I had often criticized him for his style of governance which I termed an “Igbo version of Owambe style of governance” – a reference to the lavish ceremonies and high-profile events that characterized his tenure. However, even his critics acknowledge that beyond the pomp and pageantry, Obiano built and nurtured relationships across the political spectrum. He was widely described as magnanimous in his dealings, a quality that extended to both allies and opponents.
This magnanimity translated into tangible political capital. During his tenure, Obiano managed to maintain relative stability within APGA despite the party’s inherent contradictions and competing interests. He successfully navigated the complex web of Anambra politics, delivering on key infrastructure projects while maintaining peace with various stakeholders. His signature projects, including major road constructions, the Anambra International Airport, Awka Tounship Stadium and the International Convention Centre as well as various urban renewal initiatives, represented significant investments in the state’s future.
However, Soludo’s administration has been accused of claiming ownership of projects that were initiated and largely financed during the Obiano era. This practice of rebranding his predecessor’s projects with cosmetic improvements and repainting has become a source of significant irritation for the former governor and his supporters. The failure to acknowledge Obiano’s contributions in a number of these ongoing projects has been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to erase his legacy from the state’s development narrative.
As Soludo positions himself for a second term, the estrangement with Obiano poses significant political risks. The former governor’s political network, built over decades of relationship-building, remains largely intact. His appointees, many of whom feel abandoned by the current administration, represent a potentially formidable opposition force. The recent plea by Obiano’s former aides for unpaid severance packages highlights the depth of dissatisfaction within this constituency.
Reports suggest that several of Obiano’s allies are actively working against Soludo’s second-term ambitions. This opposition is not merely driven by personal grievances but reflects a broader sense of betrayal within the political class.
The recent report of Obiano’s kinsmen accusing Soludo of betrayal and preparing to support the APC candidature of Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu and Senator Uche Ekwunife as a viable alternative demonstrates the extent to which the political rupture has spread beyond personal disagreements to affect broader ethnic and community loyalties. In Anambra’s complex political matrix, such community-level opposition can significantly impact electoral outcomes and it doesnt reside at such levels alone.
So, is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics? The evidence suggests that despite being out of office for over three years, the former governor retains considerable political influence. His relevance derives from several factors that extend beyond his formal position.
First, Obiano’s extensive network of relationships remains largely intact. During his eight years in office, he cultivated alliances across party lines, built relationships with traditional rulers, and maintained connections with various interest groups.
Second, his role in Soludo’s emergence creates a moral and political debt that many observers believe remains unpaid. The former governor’s supporters argue that his contributions to the current administration deserve recognition and respect. The failure to acknowledge this debt has created a narrative of ingratitude that resonates with many in the political class who understand the importance of loyalty and reciprocity in Nigerian politics.
Third, Obiano’s legacy projects continue to define Anambra’s development trajectory. Regardless of current ownership claims, the major infrastructure developments initiated during his tenure remain visible testaments to his administrative capacity. These projects serve as constant reminders of his contributions to the state’s progress and help maintain his relevance in public discourse.
The Obiano-Soludo rift reflects broader challenges in Nigerian democratic practice. The tendency of successive administrations to completely disavow their predecessors’ contributions undermines continuity in governance and development. It also discourages the kind of elder statesman role that former executives could play in providing guidance and institutional memory.
The answer may ultimately determine not just Obiano’s political future, but also the trajectory of Anambra politics and the prospects for Soludo’s second-term ambitions. In politics, as in life, how one treats their benefactors often determines how others perceive their character and trustworthiness. For Soludo, either by reconciling, managing or making further attempts to undermine the Obiano relationship may prove as crucial to his political survival as any policy initiative or development project.
