The controversy surrounding Nigeria’s long-delayed Mambilla Hydropower Project has taken a fresh political turn following the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal’s decision in favour of Nigeria and subsequent allegations by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council against African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
The ICC tribunal in Paris rejected claims brought by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, in connection with the proposed 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State. The tribunal also ordered Sunrise Power and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses, reported at about $11.8 million.
The ruling has nevertheless generated a new political dispute, with the APC Presidential Campaign Council focusing on a $500,000 payment made in January 2003 to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then-wife.
APC Links Atiku to Controversial Mambilla Contract
In a statement issued on Friday, September 18, APC Presidential Campaign Council spokesman Dele Alake alleged that Atiku, who was vice-president at the time, and former Minister of Power Olu Agunloye worked together to facilitate the controversial Mambilla contract.
According to the APC, the contract was purportedly awarded to Sunrise Power in May 2003 despite objections attributed to then-President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The campaign council further alleged that the $500,000 payment made to Jennifer Douglas was connected to the negotiations surrounding the Mambilla project.
The payment was reportedly transferred on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Leno Adesanya, into Douglas’ Citibank account in the United States. The transfer occurred less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract.
What the ICC Tribunal Said About the $500,000 Payment
The $500,000 transaction became a significant issue during the arbitration proceedings.
Reports on the tribunal’s final award indicate that Adesanya maintained that the payment was part of a legitimate foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku.
However, the tribunal reportedly found that the explanation was not adequately supported by documentary evidence, including evidence of the underlying naira transaction, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, or other documentation establishing the commercial purpose of the payment.
The tribunal also noted the timing of the transaction, observing a close temporal connection between the January 30, 2003 payment and the purported May 22, 2003 award of the Mambilla BOT contract.
Importantly, reports on the final award indicate that the tribunal did not find that Atiku received a bribe or conclude that he corruptly used his official position to secure the contract for Sunrise Power.
APC Calls on Atiku to Withdraw From 2027 Race
Following the arbitration decision, the APC Presidential Campaign Council called on Atiku Abubakar to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.
Alake accused the ADC presidential candidate of compromising Nigeria’s interests for personal gain and described the $500,000 payment as a major issue arising from the Mambilla proceedings.
The APC also alleged that the disputed contract exposed Nigeria to substantial financial liabilities after the government declined to proceed with the project under the terms claimed by Sunrise.
The campaign council linked the controversy to the wider arbitration claims filed against Nigeria by Sunrise Power and Adesanya over the stalled Mambilla project.
Atiku Rejects Allegation of ICC Corruption Finding
Atiku has rejected the APC’s interpretation of the arbitration proceedings.
In a response issued through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku challenged the APC to identify any portion of the tribunal’s final award in which he was found to have received a $500,000 bribe, abused his office, influenced the award of the Mambilla contract or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
Atiku’s camp argued that the ICC proceedings were commercial arbitration proceedings and should not be presented as a criminal conviction or corruption verdict against him.
Background to the Mambilla Hydropower Dispute
The Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, located in Taraba State, has been the subject of controversy for more than two decades.
The dispute dates back to 2003, when Sunrise Power sought to develop the project under a BOT arrangement. Sunrise subsequently relied on a letter issued by then-Power Minister Olu Agunloye on May 22, 2003, as evidence that it had been awarded the project.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo later disputed the authority of the minister to commit the Federal Government to the agreement and maintained that he had objected to the proposed arrangement.
Sunrise eventually commenced arbitration proceedings against Nigeria, seeking billions of dollars in compensation over the disputed project. The latest ICC decision rejected the claims against Nigeria and required Sunrise and its promoter to bear a substantial portion of Nigeria’s legal costs.
Mambilla Arbitration Becomes 2027 Political Flashpoint
The ICC ruling has therefore produced two separate narratives.
For the APC Presidential Campaign Council, the tribunal proceedings have revived questions about the circumstances surrounding the 2003 Mambilla contract and the $500,000 payment to Atiku’s former wife.
For Atiku and his supporters, the key distinction is that the tribunal examined the payment but did not issue a corruption conviction or a finding that he accepted a bribe.
The political dispute is expected to remain part of the wider debate surrounding the 2027 presidential election, particularly as parties and candidates scrutinise the records and conduct of their political opponents.