Atiku Challenges APC To Show Evidence Of Mambilla Bribery Verdict

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has rejected allegations by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council that he compromised Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla hydropower project.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris did not find him guilty of corruption or rule that he received a $500,000 bribe linked to the project.

His response came after the APC campaign council called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over allegations connected to the Mambilla project and a payment made to Jennifer Douglas, his then-wife, in 2003.

The dispute followed the ICC tribunal’s recent ruling in favour of Nigeria in the arbitration involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government.

The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims over the Mambilla project and ordered the company and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for part of its legal expenses. Reports on the award put the recoverable Nigerian legal costs at about $11.82 million.

A major issue examined during the arbitration was a $500,000 payment that Adesanya transferred through China Castle Investments Limited to Douglas’s United States bank account on January 30, 2003.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money represented a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku. The tribunal, however, rejected his explanation because it was not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.

The APC subsequently linked the payment to negotiations over the Mambilla project and alleged that Atiku, who was vice-president at the time, worked with then Minister of Power Olu Agunloye to facilitate the contract.

Atiku, through a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the APC to identify where the ICC award made the alleged finding against him.

He accused the ruling party of presenting allegations considered during the arbitration as though they amounted to a corruption verdict.

“The APC cannot manufacture the missing finding simply because the actual award does not provide the political conclusion it desperately wants,” Atiku said.

He added:

“Nigeria alleged before the tribunal that the transfer was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract. Sunrise and Adesanya denied that allegation.

“Adesanya offered an explanation which the tribunal did not accept.

“But an unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar.

“I was not a member of the technical process that evaluated the competing proposals and recommended Sunrise. I did not sit on the procurement panel.

“I did not award the contract. So anyone alleging that I manipulated that process has a simple responsibility: show the instruction I gave, show the intervention I made, and show the paragraph of the tribunal award where that corrupt influence was found.

“If the tribunal wanted to find that the $500,000 was a bribe paid to Atiku, it could have said so plainly. If it wanted to find that Atiku abused his office to procure the contract for Sunrise, it could have said so plainly.

“The APC cannot insert into an international arbitral award words and conclusions that the arbitrators themselves did not put there.”

Atiku Rejects Claim That Tribunal Summoned Him

The former vice-president also disputed the claim that the tribunal summoned him to give evidence but that he refused to appear.

He said the fact that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and the late Muhammadu Buhari participated in the proceedings did not mean that he was also summoned.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal,” Atiku said.

“The reported contents of the award do not establish that the tribunal summoned me, ordered me to testify or found that I disobeyed any directive to appear.

“There is a world of difference between a party to an arbitration attempting to secure somebody’s testimony and the tribunal itself summoning that person to appear.

“Those distinctions matter. The APC cannot erase them simply because doing so makes for a more convenient headline.”

Atiku also compared the allegations against him with the long-running controversy over a $460,000 forfeiture involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States.

The ICC proceedings themselves examined Atiku’s role in the Mambilla project and his reported involvement in discussions around the project. However, reports on the final award indicate that the tribunal did not make a finding that Atiku personally received the $500,000 as a bribe.

The arbitration arose from a dispute between Sunrise and the Nigerian government over the Mambilla hydropower project. Sunrise had sought billions of dollars in claims against Nigeria, but the tribunal ultimately ruled against the company’s claims.

The latest exchange has added another political dimension to the Mambilla controversy, with the APC and Atiku offering different interpretations of what the ICC tribunal’s findings mean for the former vice-president.