By Eshioromeh Sebastian
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has denied any involvement in the controversial $500,000 payment linked to the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, challenging the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to produce the paragraph of the arbitration award where he was found culpable of corruption.
Atiku, who spoke through his spokesman, Phrank Shaibu, on Friday, accused the APC Campaign Council of distorting the outcome of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration by presenting allegations examined by the tribunal as a corruption verdict against him.
Spear News Nigeria reports that the ICC tribunal sitting in Paris on Thursday delivered its final award, ruling in favour of Nigeria and rejecting claims brought by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited over the disputed Mambilla project.
Sunrise had sought about $2.35 billion over an alleged breach of a 2003 agreement, while also demanding $680 million as a settlement sum in a related arbitration.
The tribunal dismissed 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.
However, the proceedings examined a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya on January 30, 2003, through his offshore company, China Castle Investments Limited, to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s former wife. The payment was made less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded a Build-Operate-Transfer contract for the Mambilla project.
Adesanya told the tribunal that the payment was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku. The tribunal rejected this explanation, citing the absence of documentary evidence to corroborate the claim, and noted the circumstances raised “significant red flags” concerning the payment and the alleged contract award.
However, in his response, Atiku argued that the tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s explanation did not amount to a finding that he received a bribe or corruptly influenced the contract.
“An unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar,” the statement said.
He challenged the APC to identify the specific paragraphs in the award where the tribunal found that he solicited or received a bribe, instructed former Power Minister Olu Agunloye to award the contract to Sunrise, or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
“There is no such finding,” Atiku declared.
He also rejected claims that he refused to appear before the tribunal after being summoned, stating: “I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal.” He noted that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari testified on behalf of Nigeria, but their participation could not be construed as evidence that he had been summoned and refused to appear.
The APC Campaign Council on Friday, in a statement signed by its spokesman, Dele Alake, had called on Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race, alleging that he compromised Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla project.
The council alleged that Atiku and former Power Minister Olu Agunloye “worked in cahoots” to secure the contract for Sunrise despite objections from then-President Olusegun Obasanjo and the Federal Executive Council. It claimed the $500,000 payment to Douglas was connected to the contract award and described it as a bribe.
“Abubakar’s legendary corruption reverberated in Paris at the International Arbitration Tribunal,” the APC statement said, calling on Atiku to “do himself a rare honour by bowing out of the presidential race.”
The council also accused Atiku of avoiding testimony before the tribunal, contrasting this with the appearances of Obasanjo and Buhari as witnesses for Nigeria.
In related development, Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga also challenged Atiku to address the $500,000 bribe allegation rather than diverting public attention with his campaign position on petrol subsidy.
In a statement on Friday, Onanuga said Atiku was “at his evasive best” when he convened a World Press Conference but avoided comment on his alleged indictment in Paris over the Mambilla contract.
Onanuga quoted the tribunal as stating: “There is a close connection in time between the moment the USD 500,000 payment was made to the wife of Vice-President Abubakar on 30 January 2003 and the alleged award of the BOT contract to Sunrise on 22 May 2003.”
He argued that a man who cares about his integrity should address the integrity issue first, rather than using the press conference to push his pro-petrol subsidy stance and attack the Tinubu administration.
“Nigerians should not be deceived: Atiku does not have the people’s interests at heart. He cares more about himself,” Onanuga said.
The presidential spokesman also noted that had Atiku’s allies succeeded in Paris, Sunrise and Adesanya would have walked away with $3.38 billion from the public treasury.
Atiku further argued that the APC’s distortion rested on “a false and intellectually lazy assumption” that because he served as Vice President in the Obasanjo administration, every action taken by that government must automatically be attributed to him.
He said he was not a member of the technical process that evaluated the competing proposals and recommended Sunrise, did not sit on the procurement panel, and did not award the contract.
Drawing a contrast with President Bola Tinubu’s 1993 United States case, Atiku said: “In my case, my accusers are struggling to turn an allegation considered in the Mambilla arbitration into a finding the tribunal has not been shown to have made. In President Tinubu’s 1993 United States case, however, the matter did not end with an allegation. It moved from allegation to settlement, and from settlement to a formal judicial decree.”
He cited the October 4, 1993 order by Judge John A. Nordberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, directing the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
“The same standard must apply to everyone. Do not convert allegation into conviction. Do not transfer findings from one person to another. Do not manufacture a verdict where none has been produced,” Atiku said.
He maintained that Nigerians should be allowed to read the words of the tribunal themselves and distinguish between allegation and adjudication.
“An allegation is not a finding. Suspicion is not proof. The rejection of one man’s explanation is not the conviction of another man,” he said.
Discussion about this post