Working with  libsecp256k1 is better than with openssl when we consider continuous and consisting bitcoin development in the long run.

To be fair, OpenSSL has a much wider goal. It's an apples and oranges comparison in that sense; but we don't need those extra parts.

To add to earlier comments, it's much easier to audit libsecp256k1 code than it is to audit OpenSSL code. We've seen from experience that OpenSSL is not audited nearly as well as it should; from personal experience, I think this is because so much of the code is behind so many layers of macro obfuscation and bizarre architecture that it discourages anyone who tries. So libsecp256k1 being cleaner not only means audits are more likely to uncover any funny business; it also increases the number of people willing to look at the code.