Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has rejected allegations by the All Progressives Congress that he compromised Nigeria’s interests in the controversial Mambilla Hydropower Project, saying the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal did not find him guilty of corruption.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, said he neither participated in the procurement process that led to the award of the Mambilla contract nor instructed anyone to award it to Sunrise Power.
He spoke in a statement issued on Friday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in response to calls by the APC Presidential Campaign Council for him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over the controversy.
The dispute followed the ICC tribunal’s recent ruling in favour of Nigeria in claims brought by Sunrise Power over the Mambilla project. The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims and ordered the company and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses, amounting to about $11.8 million.
The arbitration also examined evidence surrounding a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then-wife, in January 2003, months before Sunrise was awarded a build-operate-transfer contract connected to the Mambilla project.
The payment and its alleged connection to the project formed part of the evidence considered by the tribunal. Atiku, however, argued that the tribunal did not make a finding that he personally received a bribe or corruptly influenced the contract.
“Show the instruction I gave, show the intervention I made, and show the paragraph of the tribunal award where that corrupt influence was found,” Atiku said.
He challenged the APC to identify the specific portion of the tribunal’s final award where it found that he collected a $500,000 bribe or directed the then Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, to award the contract to Sunrise.
Atiku said the APC was attempting to turn allegations presented before the tribunal into a finding that was not contained in the award.
“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,” he said.
The former vice-president also denied participating in the procurement process that selected Sunrise.
“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,” he said.
The APC campaign council had alleged that Atiku, who was vice-president at the time, worked with Agunloye to facilitate the contract despite objections from former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Atiku described the allegation as a political fabrication and maintained that anyone accusing him of manipulating the process should produce evidence of the alleged intervention.
He also rejected claims that he was summoned by the ICC tribunal but failed to appear.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration, and I did not testify before the tribunal,” Atiku said.
He argued that the participation of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari in proceedings connected to the dispute did not establish that he had been summoned to testify.
“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,” he said.
The ICC ruling itself rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for a substantial portion of its legal expenses.
The tribunal’s findings have nevertheless triggered renewed political controversy, with the APC and Atiku offering different interpretations of what the award established regarding the 2003 Mambilla contract and the $500,000 payment.
Atiku maintained that the tribunal’s consideration of the payment did not amount to a corruption finding against him.
He further contrasted the allegations against him with the previously reported forfeiture of $460,000 by President Bola Tinubu in the United States, a reference that forms part of Atiku’s political response to his critics.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses revise stance on blood components - September 19, 2026
- I didn’t influence Mambilla contract, ICC never indicted me — Atiku - September 19, 2026
- Sandra Duru alleges Akpabio hired her to target Natasha - September 19, 2026
