Soludo’s blind and bright spots, By Osmund Agbo

When Professor Charles Chukwuma Soludo assumed office as Governor of Anambra State in 2022, he arrived in Awka bearing an intimidating resume and a trailer-load of goodwill. Many Nigerians, especially those of us from the South-East, fervently rooted for his success. Few public officials in Nigeria have entered elective office with credentials as formidable or expectations as lofty.

Armed with a First-Class degree in Economics, a doctorate in Econometrics and Monetary Economics, postdoctoral research experience, and fellowships at some of the world’s most respected institutions, including the Brookings Institution, Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Soludo embodied the archetype of the scholar statesman. In a political environment often dominated by patronage and stomach infrastructure, his ascent represented something refreshingly different: the triumph of intellect and technocratic competence.

His tenure as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria only reinforced that perception. The banking consolidation programme he spearheaded fundamentally transformed Nigeria’s financial architecture, strengthening institutional resilience and restoring confidence in a sector previously plagued by fragility. Whether one agreed with all aspects of his reforms or not, there was little dispute that Soludo possessed both the intellectual bandwidth and policy sophistication to tackle complex governance challenges. For many Nigerians, he became synonymous with excellence.

I was reminded of this several years ago during a conversation with Nurudeen, a young civic activist from Lagos. At the time, our organization, Ikengaonline, was exploring partnerships aimed at promoting transparency and public accountability in the South-East. Nurudeen led a group known as AdvoKC, an organization dedicated to empowering citizens to hold public officials accountable through civic engagement and technology.

With evident excitement, he introduced me to a digital platform his team had developed called “Soludometer”, an independent promise tracking initiative designed to monitor and evaluate the campaign commitments of Soludo, then Governor elect of Anambra State. The significance of that initiative was not lost on me.

In a country where electoral contests are too often reduced to patronage networks and the politics of immediate gratification, Soludo was not merely expected to govern competently. He was expected to redefine governance itself. He had become more than a politician. He had become a benchmark, a standard against which the quality of leadership would be measured.

Perhaps it is because of those expectations that criticism of Soludo has often felt somewhat uncomfortable. Perhaps it is because we share mutual acquaintances whom I will not name out of respect for their privacy. Perhaps it is because his deputy governor is a year my junior from medical school. Whatever the reason, there has always been a degree of reluctance on my part whenever I have had to assess his stewardship. Unfortunately, it did not take long for much of that initial goodwill to evaporate.

Almost from the outset, Soludo appeared less preoccupied with consolidating his achievements as governor than with cultivating a broader national profile. There is nothing inherently wrong with political ambition. Many of history’s most consequential leaders viewed one office as preparation for another. Ambition, properly directed, can be a virtue.

The problem, however, is that Soludo increasingly created the impression of a politician engaged in a perpetual contest with Peter Obi, a contest that exists more vividly in his own political calculations than in the minds of many ordinary Nigerians.

Let me be clear: Peter Obi is a public figure and one of the most consequential political actors in contemporary Nigeria. As such, he is neither above scrutiny nor exempt from criticism. In any healthy democracy, public officials and political leaders must be subjected to rigorous examination, robust debate, and, where warranted, sharp criticism. Obi’s policies, statements, and political decisions should be interrogated with the same vigor applied to any other politician.

The issue, therefore, is not that Soludo criticises Peter Obi. The concern is the apparent selectivity, frequency, and disproportionate intensity of that criticism. When a governor appears consistently preoccupied with one opposition figure while showing far less enthusiasm for scrutinising other major political actors whose decisions wield far greater influence over the lives of Nigerians, questions inevitably arise. Fair criticism strengthens democratic discourse; selective criticism risks being perceived as political calculation masquerading as principle.

Throughout the 2023 presidential campaign, despite neither Soludo nor APGA being major contenders in the race, he repeatedly directed public criticism at Obi. Even after the election, Obi has remained a recurring subject of Soludo’s interventions. Yet one struggles to recall a comparable level of public criticism directed by Soludo toward President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, whose policies have profoundly affected every Nigerian, including millions of Anambra citizens. Nor has he displayed similar eagerness in scrutinizing Atiku Abubakar, another major national political actor whose ambitions and policy prescriptions have equally shaped the national conversation.

That asymmetry is difficult to ignore.

Politics is a marketplace of competing ideas, and public figures are fair game for criticism. However, when criticism appears concentrated on one individual while others occupying comparable positions escape similar scrutiny, questions naturally arise about motive, consistency, and political calculation. The more consequential issue, therefore, is perception.

And the perception that emerged was of a governor expending valuable political capital on a rivalry that contributes little to solving the pressing challenges confronting Anambra State. Fairly or unfairly, many began to view him less as the detached technocrat they had admired and more as a politician distracted by national ambitions and political score settling. That perception has undoubtedly diminished his standing among many who once regarded him as a rare bridge between intellectual excellence and public service.

Yet reducing Soludo to his political blind spots alone would be both unfair and intellectually dishonest. For all his shortcomings, there are areas in which he has demonstrated uncommon courage and clarity of purpose.