Atiku denies corruption verdict, but fails to address ICC tribunal’s concerns over $500,000 payment

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has denied being indicted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal over a $500,000 payment made by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya to his then-wife, Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, in 2003.

But while rejecting the suggestion that the arbitration amounted to a corruption verdict against him, Atiku did not directly address several concerns raised by the tribunal about the payment, including Mr Adesanya’s failure to provide documentary or independent witness evidence supporting his explanation that the transaction was a legitimate foreign-exchange deal.

The tribunal, in its final award in the long-running Mambilla arbitration, said the circumstances surrounding the payment raised “significant red flags” but also made clear that it found no evidence that Mr Abubakar actually used his official position to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise Power.

Atiku’s response came through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, on Friday, after the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council accused the former vice-president of compromising Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla project and called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.

Mr Shaibu challenged the APC to produce the portion of the tribunal’s final award in which Atiku was found to have received a bribe, abused his office, influenced the award of the contract to Sunrise Power, or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.

“A commercial arbitration did not indict Atiku, did not convict Atiku and cannot be transformed into a criminal verdict by repetition,” Mr Shaibu said.

He argued that the tribunal’s consideration of the $500,000 payment did not amount to a finding that Atiku received a bribe.

What the tribunal actually said

The ICC tribunal examined a $500,000 payment made by Mr Adesanya on 30 January 2003 from the Swiss bank account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Ltd, to a US bank account belonging to Ms Douglas.

The payment was made less than four months before the Mambilla BOT contract was purportedly awarded to Sunrise by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.

Mr Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku through his bureau de change business.

But the tribunal said that the explanation was not supported by documentary evidence.

It said Mr Adesanya did not produce records showing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence concerning the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.

The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Ms Douglas provided a witness statement or declaration supporting the explanation.

The tribunal said Mr Adesanya’s relationship with Atiku, his efforts to secure the Mambilla project for Sunrise and the timing of the payment were relevant to its assessment.

It noted that Atiku had led a Nigerian government delegation to Beijing in July 2002, which included Mr Adesanya, during which the Nigerian government and the Chinese state-owned NCPEC signed a memorandum of understanding covering, among other projects, the Mambilla project.

Against that background, the tribunal said the circumstances raised “significant red flags” concerning the alleged payment, possible use of Atiku’s influence and the subsequent award of the contract.

However, the tribunal expressly qualified its observation.

“The Tribunal also observes that there is no evidence on the record of this arbitration that Vice-President Abubakar actually exercised his duties as a government official in a manner that fostered the award of the contract to Sunrise,” it said.

The tribunal nevertheless said it could not accept Mr Adesanya’s foreign-exchange explanation.

“In the absence of any evidence that would allow the Tribunal to accept that the USD 500,000 payment was a bona fide foreign exchange transaction,” it said, it could not exclude the possibility that the payment was related to Atiku’s leading role in the Nigerian government in relation to the Mambilla project.

Atiku’s response

Mr Shaibu said the arbitration proceedings should not be characterised as a criminal prosecution.

He also contrasted the Mambilla proceedings with a separate case involving an account associated with President Bola Tinubu in the United States.

He cited what he described as an actual US forfeiture decree involving funds and argued that the Mambilla tribunal issued no comparable finding against Atiku.

“How touching, Bayo: the Mambilla arbitration ran for years and Atiku never once rushed to court to ask that evidence be hidden; yet, you guys are here shamelessly shouting over nothing,” Mr Shaibu said, apparently responding to APC campaign council spokesman Bayo Onanuga.

He also referred to proceedings in Washington involving Mr Tinubu’s lawyers, alleging they sought to keep certain FBI and DEA records identifying the president redacted or withheld.

Other payments examined

The tribunal’s concerns were not limited to the $500,000 payment involving Atiku’s former wife.

It also examined three payments totalling about $15,000 that Mr Adesanya made to Mr Agunloye through his aide, Jide Sotinrin.

Mr Agunloye was the minister who purportedly awarded the Mambilla BOT contract to Sunrise in May 2003.

READ ALSO: APC challenges Atiku to present alternatives to Tinubu reforms

The payments were made in 2019, while the dispute over the Mambilla contract was already being litigated.

The tribunal separately considered the explanations offered for those payments and the circumstances surrounding them.

The Mambilla arbitration arose from claims by Sunrise Power and Mr Adesanya against Nigeria over the controversial power project. The ICC tribunal ultimately rejected the related claims, in a ruling that removed billions of dollars in potential liability for Nigeria.