Re: ANAMBRA POVERTY DEBATE AND EXAMINATION OF BOTH FIGURES

BY TAIWO OMONIYI OTITOLAYE

Preamble.

This rejoinder attempts to enthrone professionalism, intellectual credibility, integrity and Governance-Based Neutrality (GBN). It refrains from painting Obi as a saint, while also not painting Soludo as a miracle worker. It demands evidence for both.

1. WHAT THE NUMBERS ACTUALLY ARE

The article claims Oxford’s 11.2% figure but the current Oxford figure is not 11.2%.

OPHI 2026 Global MPI Country Briefing for Nigeria: Anambra = 9.6% multidimensionally poor, MPI 0.038, based on DHS 2024. Lagos 3.7%, Edo 4.9%, Rivers 7.2%, Ogun 7.5%, Ekiti 9.5%, Anambra 9.6%.

NBS 2022 National MPI: Anambra = 32.1% multidimensionally poor, from a survey of 56,610 households measuring health, education, living standards, work and shocks.

The 11.2% figure appears to be from an older OPHI/MICS briefing where Anambra ranged between 9.1% and 12.6% depending on the year. So we have three different figures floating: 32.1% NBS 2022, 11.2% old OPHI, 9.6% new OPHI. They cannot be compared directly.

2. WHAT AFRICAN TREND GOT RIGHT

The core statement is correct: Multidimensional poverty is not identical to monetary or absolute poverty. It considers overlapping disadvantages in areas such as education, health and living standards rather than relying exclusively on income.

And: The Oxford figure is relevant, but it does not automatically invalidate the NBS findings.

That is the key methodological point. NBS MPI and Global MPI are different instruments:

• NBS includes 4 dimensions plus unemployment and shocks, designed for Nigerian policy.
• OPHI Global MPI uses 3 dimensions, 10 indicators, harmonized for cross-country comparison.
• Different sample, different weights, different cut-off for poor.

3. WHERE THE DEBATE BECOMES POLITICAL

a) False balance without explaining incomparability:
Saying each must be interpreted according to the question its methodology was designed to answer is true, but it avoids the harder question: How did Anambra drop from 32.1% in NBS 2022 to 9.6% in OPHI 2026? That is not governance magic. It is a change of survey and methodology.

The version reposted by the Anambra State Government frames 9.6% as proof of what happens when governance transcends the transactional under Governor Soludo. That is political attribution, not statistical evidence.

b) The same standard must apply to Obi’s era:
A historical figure of 11.2% associated with Peter Obi’s administration may provide relevant context, but it does not independently prove how much poverty his administration reduced. Just as 9.6% does not prove Soludo’s miracle.

c) No discussion of intensity:
A low headcount does not establish that every household enjoys adequate income, affordable food, secure employment or comfortable living. OPHI says Anambra’s intensity is 39.3% and severe poverty is 1.0%. These must be reported together.

4. WHAT A NEUTRAL POSITION MUST SAY

To be truly put in context, the editorial must state clearly:

1. NBS 32.1% and OPHI 9.6% answer different questions – do not subtract one from the other to claim a 22.5-point drop.
2. Neither figure proves any governor reduced poverty; you need two comparable rounds of the same instrument.
3. No administration should monopolize poverty statistics for political advantage – not Soludo with 9.6%, not Obi with 11.2%.
4. The recent national trend is negative: Nigeria recorded the largest absolute increase in multidimensional poverty – up by 17.9 million people from 2021 to 2024 – so any state claiming improvement while the national picture worsens needs extra scrutiny with comparable evidence.

Verdict: The editorial is directionally correct that multidimensional is not monetary and that Oxford does not invalidate NBS, but it will only be credible if it applies the same rule to both administrations and publishes the primary source for 11.2%.

Taiwo Omoniyi OTITOLAYE is the Executive Director, Community Outreach for Development and Welfare Advocacy (CODWA), and a public affairs analyst.