By Dr. Collins Ogbu, SSA to the Governor of Enugu State on Strategic Communications
By any serious standard of public finance, debt should never be examined in isolation. Sound economic analysis does not stop at asking how much a government owes. It asks deeper and more relevant questions: how fast is revenue growing, what productive assets are being created, what long-term capacity is being built, and whether the debt burden is becoming lighter or heavier relative to income. On these more meaningful tests, Enugu State under Peter Mbah is presenting a story that many destructive critics would rather ignore.
The loudest naysayers repeat one figure endlessly: ₦194 billion debt! Yet they deliberately omit the second figure that matters even more: revenue growth!!! Debt means one thing when a state earns ₦43 billion annually, and something entirely different when that same state grows earnings to ₦181 billion, then ₦406 billion, with a projection of ₦870 billion. When obligations remain relatively stable while earning power rises dramatically, the fiscal picture changes completely. That is how economies modernise, rebuild capacity, and prepare for future prosperity.
Using the available figures in the graphical illustration above, the numbers speak for themselves. Thus, in just a few years, Enugu’s debt burden relative to earnings is projected to collapse from 451% to 22% ceteris paribus (assuming 194 billion was the debt burden as at 2023 Fiscal Year ending). That is not fiscal deterioration. That is fiscal transformation. A state that once had debt more than four times its annual revenue is moving toward a position where debt would be barely one-fifth of annual earnings. No fair-minded analyst can dismiss that shift.
Debt becomes dangerous only when income is stagnant and borrowed funds are wasted. Many governments borrow merely to finance recurrent consumption, political patronage, or temporary relief with no lasting assets to show for it. That is bad debt. But borrowing to finance roads, schools, hospitals, transport systems, industrial zones, security architecture, digital land reforms, and water infrastructure can be economically prudent when such investments help expand revenue. That is the distinction critics often blur or intentionally ignore.
The administration of Peter Mbah has consistently linked borrowing and spending to a broader economic strategy: increase productive capacity, attract private investment, formalise sectors of the economy, improve tax efficiency without overburdening citizens, and grow internally generated revenue. These are not the habits of a government drifting aimlessly. They are the habits of an administration trying to reposition a state economy for scale.
This is also why the much-discussed $30 billion GDP target should not be dismissed with lazy cynicism. The government has publicly declared its intention to move Enugu State from an estimated GDP of about $4.4 billion toward $30 billion within eight years through industrialisation, logistics, technology, agriculture, tourism, and investment attraction. Ambitious? Certainly. Impossible? Not necessarily. Economic targets are never achieved through pessimism. They are achieved by creating conditions for growth, building investor confidence, and sustaining execution.
Recent efforts tied to industrial expansion, logistics corridors, and commercial hubs indicate that the administration is attempting to create those conditions. Whether the state lands exactly at $30 billion is less important than the fact that it is planning for expansion instead of managing decline. States that think small usually remain small.
Infrastructure must also be understood as an economic tool, not a ceremonial exercise. Roads are not mere concrete; they reduce transport costs, shorten travel time, expand access to markets, and raise land values. Better schools improve future labour quality and digital readiness. Improved security supports commerce and nightlife. Reliable water systems lower health burdens and business constraints. Urban renewal attracts talent and investment. These are economic multipliers, not cosmetic projects.
When comparisons are made with states such as Lagos State, Rivers State, or Anambra State, honesty requires context. Lagos remains Nigeria’s economic giant. Rivers has oil-backed strength. Anambra has a vibrant private commercial base. But the relevant measure for Enugu today is not whether it is already larger than those states; it is whether it is accelerating faster from its own base. A state moving from ₦43 billion revenue to ₦406 billion and projecting ₦870 billion is clearly signaling momentum. Momentum matters in economic development.
On a per-capita basis, ₦194 billion debt across an estimated population of about 6 million translates to roughly ₦33,000 per resident. That is not insignificant, but neither is it catastrophic when weighed against long-life assets such as roads, schools, industrial facilities, and systems that can serve citizens for decades. The real question is whether people inherit liabilities alone, or liabilities paired with productive infrastructure and expanded opportunities.
Constructive criticism is healthy and necessary in any democracy. But destructive criticism ignores evidence. It speaks only of debt while refusing to mention revenue growth. It counts liabilities but not assets. It notices targets but not implementation. It highlights challenges while pretending progress does not exist. No government is flawless, and no serious observer claims all problems are solved. National inflationary pressures, unemployment, and macroeconomic constraints affect every state. Yet it is equally dishonest to behave as though nothing significant is changing when the fiscal and developmental indicators suggest otherwise.
The clinical verdict is simple. If Enugu State were borrowing more while revenue stagnated, alarm would be justified. But if debt is broadly stable while earnings rise sharply, infrastructure expands, industrial platforms emerge, and repayment capacity strengthens, then the narrative must change. That is not propaganda. It is arithmetic.
The greatest danger to Enugu is therefore not productive borrowing; it is small thinking. States do not become prosperous by fearing investment, resisting ambition, or romanticising stagnation. They grow by building, planning, and executing. Peter Mbah has chosen an aggressive development path. Citizens are entitled to scrutinise it, but scrutiny must be rooted in facts rather than bitterness.
And the facts increasingly suggest one conclusion: Enugu’s debt story is less about burden and more about leverage for growth.
And this is why we insist that, under His Excellency, Dr. Peter Ndubuisi Mbah, TOMORROW IS HERE!
