By Zuleihat Owuiye, Nigeria

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has challenged the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council to produce the specific portions of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award that it says establish his involvement in wrongdoing over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), made the demand in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in response to allegations raised by the APC campaign council.

The dispute followed the release of the final award from an ICC arbitration tribunal in Paris concerning the long-running dispute between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government of Nigeria. The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria and ordered Sunrise and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal costs.

Atiku argued that the APC had presented issues examined during the arbitration as though the tribunal had issued a corruption verdict against him.

He said he was not a member of the technical process that evaluated competing proposals for the Mambilla project and did not sit on the procurement panel or personally award the contract.

According to him, anyone alleging that he manipulated the process should identify the specific instruction or intervention attributed to him and point to the relevant section of the tribunal’s award.

Atiku also challenged the APC to show where the tribunal allegedly found that he received a $500,000 bribe, directed former Minister of Power and Steel Olu Agunloye to award the contract to Sunrise Power, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.

His position is consistent with reports from other Nigerian news organisations that the tribunal examined a $500,000 payment made by Leno Adesanya to Jennifer Douglas, who was Atiku’s wife at the time, but did not make a finding that Atiku personally received a bribe.

The $500,000 transaction has become a central issue in the political dispute surrounding the arbitration.

According to reports on the tribunal’s final award, Adesanya said the payment was made through China Castle Investments Limited in January 2003 and was connected to a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku.

The tribunal considered that explanation but reportedly noted that Adesanya did not provide documentary or independent witness evidence to support his account. The payment was made less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded the Mambilla project contract.

Atiku, however, argued that the tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s explanation for the transaction should not automatically be interpreted as a finding that the money was a bribe paid to him.

He said the distinction between an allegation, evidence considered during arbitration and a formal finding was important in interpreting the award.

Atiku also rejected claims that he deliberately refused to appear before the tribunal.

He said he was not a party to the arbitration and did not testify before the tribunal. He further argued that the proceedings were between Sunrise Power, Leno Adesanya and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The arbitration involved Nigeria’s defence of claims brought by Sunrise concerning the Mambilla project. Former government officials, including former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari, as well as former ministers, participated in the proceedings or provided evidence, according to reports on the case.

Atiku said the participation of those officials should not be interpreted as evidence that he was personally summoned and refused to appear.

The APC Presidential Campaign Council had earlier cited the Mambilla arbitration in questioning Atiku’s record and calling on him to reconsider his participation in the 2027 presidential contest.

Atiku has rejected that interpretation and said the political debate should focus on the contents of the tribunal’s actual award rather than allegations derived from it.

He also raised questions about a 1993 United States civil forfeiture case involving President Bola Tinubu, while acknowledging that the US proceeding was a civil forfeiture action involving property rather than a criminal conviction of Tinubu personally for drug trafficking.

Atiku said Nigerians should examine the documentary records surrounding both matters and distinguish between allegations and formal judicial or arbitral findings.

The controversy comes as political parties and candidates begin positioning themselves ahead of the 2027 general elections, with the Mambilla project becoming a significant point of debate over the records of politicians who were involved in government at different periods.

Atiku maintained that the tribunal’s award should be read in its entirety and challenged the APC to publish any section it believes establishes personal wrongdoing on his part.

The competing interpretations of the arbitration remain part of the wider political dispute over the Mambilla project and the conduct of public officials connected to it.