The tribunal also examined Atiku Abubakar’s involvement in the early stages of the Mambilla project. Atiku participated in discussions with Sunrise and its Chinese partner in 2001 and led a Nigerian government delegation to China in July 2002, where power-sector projects, including Mambilla, were discussed
The tribunal reportedly rejected Sunrise and Adesanya’s argument that Atiku lacked the political influence to affect the purported 2003 contract award. It concluded that he possessed considerable power and influence within the federal government during the first half of 2003.
The award also referred to a February 2003 US diplomatic cable that described Adesanya as an “Atiku insider.” The description and the tribunal’s assessment of Atiku’s influence are relevant to understanding the political environment surrounding the negotiations. They do not, on their own, establish that Atiku directed the payment or that the transfer was made in exchange for a contract decision.
The Disputed Contract and Nigeria’s Arbitration Victory
The financial disclosure emerges from a broader legal dispute over the Mambilla hydropower contract.
Sunrise Power launched arbitration against Nigeria in 2017, seeking approximately $2.35 billion over an alleged breach of the 2003 agreement. The dispute later involved a proposed $200 million settlement and additional claims.
In the final award reported by TheCable, the ICC tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria and declined to compel the government to pay the disputed settlement amounts. The tribunal also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 percent of its legal fees and expenses, with recoverable costs reported at approximately $11.82 million.
The arbitration outcome is significant because it places the disputed transfer within proceedings that examined both the contract’s validity and allegations surrounding the circumstances of the project.
What Remains to Be Established?
Several questions warrant further examination by investigators, relevant authorities and the public:
1\. Who instructed the transfer?
Adesanya reportedly said the money was transferred for Atiku as part of a foreign-exchange transaction. The tribunal found that documentary evidence establishing the instructions was not provided. The identity of the person who authorised the transfer and the supporting financial records remain central to understanding the transaction.
2\. What was the actual commercial purpose?
The tribunal did not accept the explanation that the payment was a foreign-exchange transaction for Atiku. Further documentation would be needed to establish the purpose of the payment and whether the transaction was connected to the Mambilla project.
3\. Was there a connection to the contract award?
Nigeria alleged a connection between the payment and the disputed Mambilla contract. Sunrise and Adesanya denied the allegation. The timing of the payment makes the issue relevant to the investigation, but a causal relationship requires supporting evidence.
4\. What response will Atiku and other relevant parties provide?
TheCable reported that it contacted Atiku’s media advisers for comment. Atiku has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with the earlier corruption and money-laundering investigation involving William Jefferson. A response from the relevant parties would provide an opportunity to address the specific allegations and evidence discussed in the arbitration.
Conclusion: A Financial Disclosure That Demands Transparency
The reported acknowledgment of a $500,000 transfer by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya to Jennifer Douglas during the period of Mambilla contract negotiations raises important questions about the financial dealings surrounding a major public infrastructure project.
The tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s stated foreign-exchange explanation is a documented finding in the reported arbitration award. It is distinct from a judicial finding that Atiku personally committed corruption or that the transfer definitively influenced the contract award.
The broader public-interest question remains whether the financial transactions and decision-making processes connected to the Mambilla project can be fully accounted for. Transparency, verifiable financial records and appropriate legal scrutiny are essential when public infrastructure contracts and substantial sums of money are involved.
Source: TheCable — Revealed: Sunrise promoter transferred $500,000 to Atiku’s wife during Mambilla negotiations in 2003 .
Reporting note: This report distinguishes allegations, witness testimony and tribunal findings. It does not treat the transfer alone as proof of bribery or personal criminal liability.
