APC Attacks Atiku Over Mambilla Arbitration Revelations

The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council has criticised African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar over findings arising from the arbitration dispute surrounding the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

The council made the remarks after an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal ruled in favour of Nigeria in the long-running dispute involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited. The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria, including a demand for $680 million and another claim exceeding $2.7 billion.

The APC campaign council, in a statement signed by its spokesman, Dele Alake, focused on a $500,000 payment made by Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s former wife, in January 2003.

The payment was made through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, to Douglas’s account in the United States. It came during negotiations over the Mambilla project and about two weeks after Sunrise had presented its tender for the project.

The APC campaign council alleged that the payment was connected to the Mambilla contract and accused Atiku and former Minister of Power Olu Agunloye of working together to secure the project for Sunrise.

However, the tribunal material provides a more qualified account of the payment. Adesanya told the tribunal that the $500,000 represented a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku and was not connected to Sunrise’s bid for Mambilla. The tribunal examined that explanation but found that it was not adequately supported by documentary evidence.

The tribunal noted that Adesanya did not provide records showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, or other documents establishing the purpose of the transaction. It also noted that Atiku and Douglas did not testify in the arbitration.

The tribunal further found that China Castle, through which the money was transferred, was not licensed to conduct foreign-exchange transactions. It ultimately did not accept Adesanya’s explanation of the payment. However, Atiku was not a party to the arbitration, and the tribunal did not establish that he personally directed the transfer or that he received a bribe.

Atiku had been involved in discussions surrounding the Mambilla project before the payment. He met representatives of Sunrise and its Chinese partner in 2001 and later led a Nigerian government delegation to China in 2002, where an agreement covering several power projects, including Mambilla, was signed.

Sunrise subsequently submitted its proposal for the project to a multi-agency technical committee, which recommended the company for the 3,960-megawatt project in March 2003.

A letter issued by then Power Minister Olu Agunloye in May 2003 was later relied upon by Sunrise as evidence that the project had been awarded to it. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, however, maintained that the Federal Executive Council had not approved the contract and that he ordered the relevant memorandum withdrawn.

The disagreement over the contract eventually resulted in arbitration proceedings in which Sunrise sought billions of dollars from Nigeria.

The ICC tribunal ultimately rejected Sunrise’s claims and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal costs and expenses. Nigeria’s recoverable costs were assessed at about $11.82 million.

The APC campaign council nevertheless used the findings to question Atiku’s suitability for the 2027 presidential election and called on him to withdraw from the race. It also referred to criticisms contained in former President Obasanjo’s memoir, My Watch, concerning Atiku.

The council further linked the long-running Mambilla dispute to the delay in developing the hydroelectric project in Taraba State.

The Nigerian government has described the ICC ruling as clearing a major legal obstacle that had affected the Mambilla project for years.