Peter Obi’s response to questions about the prolonged doctors’ strike in Anambra State during his tenure as governor deserves far more scrutiny than the applause it may have received from his supporters.
At the NBA conference, activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore accused Obi of several failures during his eight-year tenure as governor of Anambra. One of the most serious allegations centred on the state’s public healthcare system and the reported 13-month strike by doctors.
But what is particularly troubling is not merely the allegation itself. It is Obi’s explanation for why the prolonged industrial action did not appear to move his administration into decisive action.
Obi reportedly explained that whenever his government funded public hospitals, some doctors allegedly diverted the funds and equipment elsewhere.
That explanation immediately raises a fundamental question: What did the government do after discovering the alleged diversion?
If public money and medical equipment were indeed being diverted, the logical response of a responsible government should have been investigation, prosecution and institutional reform.
Where was the probe?
Were the allegations documented?
Were those accused investigated?
Were any doctors or officials prosecuted?
Were the missing resources recovered?
These are not political questions. They are basic questions of accountability in public administration.
A governor cannot simply discover alleged corruption in a critical public institution and respond by abandoning the institution altogether. If anything, such a discovery should trigger stronger oversight, tighter controls and, where necessary, criminal prosecution.
This is where Obi’s explanation becomes particularly uncomfortable.
Rather than presenting evidence of a comprehensive investigation into the alleged diversion, his account suggests that his administration chose to channel attention and resources towards private healthcare institutions, including faith-based hospitals, while the public system remained embroiled in crisis.
If public funds appropriated through the state budget for public healthcare were redirected to privately owned institutions, then Nigerians are entitled to know the legal and administrative basis for such spending.
Public money is not the personal property of a governor. It is appropriated for specific purposes and subject to financial regulations, legislative oversight and public accountability.
And healthcare is not an area where government can afford to simply walk away.
Doctors going on strike for 13 months is not a minor administrative disagreement. It represents a prolonged disruption of essential healthcare services and potentially exposes vulnerable citizens to avoidable suffering.
The responsibility of a governor in such a situation is not to shrug and say, in effect, that the doctors were part of the problem.
The responsibility is to solve the problem.
If some doctors were corrupt, prosecute them.
If hospital administrators were diverting resources, remove and prosecute them.
If procurement systems were compromised, reform them.
If unions were making unreasonable demands, negotiate with them.
If public hospitals were dysfunctional, fix them.
But abandoning the public healthcare system cannot be presented as a substitute for governance.
This is precisely why Obi’s explanation deserves serious public examination as he seeks the presidency of Nigeria.
Running Nigeria is not about avoiding trouble. It is about confronting difficult problems and fixing broken institutions.
A president will inherit corruption, inefficiency, industrial disputes, bureaucratic resistance and institutional decay on a scale far greater than anything encountered at the state level.
The question Nigerians must therefore ask is simple: When Peter Obi encounters a difficult institution, does he reform it—or walk away from it?
Supporters may regard him as a symbol of prudent leadership. Others may point to his record of financial discipline and infrastructure development as evidence of his competence. Those claims can and should be debated on their merits.
But no politician should be beyond scrutiny.
The Anambra healthcare controversy deserves more than partisan arguments. Obi should explain, in clear terms, what his administration did about the alleged diversion of funds and equipment, why the doctors’ strike lasted as long as it reportedly did, and the precise legal framework under which public resources were deployed to private healthcare institutions.
Those are legitimate questions for anyone seeking to become Nigeria’s president.
The presidency is not a reward for popularity, social-media enthusiasm or political mythology. It is a responsibility that requires the ability to confront institutional problems, hold people accountable and protect public resources.
If the allegations are wrong, Obi has every opportunity to provide the facts and put them to rest.
But if his own explanation confirms that his administration knew of alleged wrongdoing and chose abandonment rather than investigation and accountability, then Nigerians have every reason to question the quality of governance that such an approach represents.
Nigeria does not need a leader who walks away from difficult problems. It needs one who stays, investigates, reforms and makes those responsible answer for their actions.
