Mambilla: APC, Atiku Clash Over $500,000 Payment, ICC Award

BY ADEMU IDAKWO, JONATHAN NDA-ISAIAH, Abuja

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration over the long-running Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has triggered a fresh political dispute between the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, with the two sides offering sharply different interpretations of what the tribunal actually found.

While the tribunal ruled in Nigeria’s favour by dismissing claims by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, the award also examined allegations surrounding the 2003 Mambilla contract, including a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then wife, who was Vice President at the time.

The APC Campaign Council, in a statement by its spokesman, Dele Alake, accused Atiku of compromising Nigeria’s interests for personal gain and urged him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race, following revelations surrounding a $500,000 payment made to his then-wife, Jennifer Douglas, in 2003 by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.

The ICC tribunal, in an award issued in the dispute between Sunrise, Adesanya and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, rejected Sunrise’s claims relating to the Mambilla project and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses.

The $500,000 payment, made through China Castle Investments Limited to Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States on January 30, 2003, became a major issue during the arbitration. Adesanya maintained that the payment was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku.

However, the tribunal found that he did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support that explanation, including records of the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructio,ns or commercial purpose.

The APC interpreted the circumstances surrounding the payment and the subsequent purported award of the Mambilla contract to Sunrise as evidence of corruption involving Atiku.

Alake alleged that Atiku and former Power Minister Olu Agunloye worked together to execute an unlawful contract despite reservations by then-President Olusegun Obasanjo and the Federal Executive Council.

The APC also cited the timing of the payment and the alleged award of the contract, arguing that the payment to Douglas preceded the May 2003 letter by Agunloye purportedly awarding Sunrise the project on a build-operate-transfer basis. The council further referenced the tribunal’s examination of Atiku’s influence within the Obasanjo administration at the time.

But Atiku, in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, rejected the APC’s interpretation, accusing the ruling party of turning an arbitration proceeding into a corruption verdict that, according to him, the tribunal never delivered.

Atiku challenged the APC to identify the specific paragraph in the final award where the tribunal found that he collected a $500,000 bribe, directed Agunloye to award the Mambilla contract to Sunrise, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.

He argued that the tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s explanation for the $500,000 transfer did not amount to a finding that Atiku received a bribe. Atiku also stressed that he was not a party to the arbitration and that the tribunal did not impose any damages, costs or other liability on him.

“The APC cannot manufacture the missing finding simply because the actual award does not provide the political conclusion it desperately wants,” Atiku said, insisting that “an allegation is not a finding” and that “suspicion is not proof.”

He also disputed the APC’s claim that he deliberately stayed away from the Paris proceedings to avoid giving evidence. Atiku said the reported contents of the award did not establish that he was summoned by the tribunal or ordered to testify. He noted that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari testified on behalf of Nigeria, alongside former ministers and other witnesses.

The arbitration centred on longstanding disputes over the proposed Mambilla hydropower project, including a purported 2003 contract awarded to Sunrise and subsequent claims against Nigeria. Sunrise had sought billions of dollars in compensation and settlement-related payments.

In the latest award, however, the tribunal rejected the company’s claims and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal costs, estimated at $11.82 million.

The controversy has now become a fresh political battle ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the APC using the arbitration proceedings to question Atiku’s suitability for the presidency, while the ADC candidate maintains that his opponents are deliberately confusing allegations and evidentiary findings with an actual corruption judgment.

Atiku challenged the APC to publish the exact portions of the arbitral award supporting its allegations, saying Nigerians should be allowed to distinguish for themselves between what was alleged during the proceedings and what the tribunal actually determined.

The APC, however, maintained that the circumstances surrounding the $500,000 payment, the Mambilla contract and Atiku’s role in the Obasanjo administration raised serious questions that should not be dismissed as political propaganda.

EXPLAINER

1. $500,000 Payment

Leno Adesanya transferred $500,000 to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then-wife, in January 2003. He said it represented a foreign-exchange transaction conducted for Atiku, but provided no documentary corroboration.

2. Tribunal’s Finding

The ICC tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation, citing the absence of records supporting the alleged transaction’s purpose, instructions, exchange rate, underlying naira payment and other documentation.

3. APC’s Allegation

The APC linked the payment to the disputed Mambilla contract and accused Atiku of compromising Nigeria’s interests. It subsequently called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.

4. Atiku’s Response

Atiku rejected the accusation, saying the tribunal never found that he received a bribe or corruptly influenced the contract. He challenged the APC to produce such a finding.

5. Nigeria Wins Case

The tribunal rejected Sunrise Power’s claims against Nigeria and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse 75 per cent of Nigeria’s legal costs, amounting to about $11.82 million.