APC Campaign Council Accuses Atiku of Compromising Nigeria’s Interests in Mambilla Power Contract Dispute
Campaign Council Demands Atiku’s Withdrawal from 2027 Presidential Race, Citing Alleged $500,000 Payment and ICC Arbitration Proceedings
ABUJA, September 18, 2026 — The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council has called on former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race, alleging that his involvement in the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project controversy demonstrates a willingness to place personal interests above national interest.
The demand was contained in a press statement signed by Dele Alake, identified as spokesman of the APC Presidential Campaign Council, and amplified by the Good Governance Group (GGG).
The statement centres on arbitration proceedings involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, over the stalled 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State. The APC campaign council alleges that Atiku and former Power Minister Olu Agunloye acted together in approving a disputed power contract during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
A central allegation in the statement concerns a $500,000 payment made to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s former wife, in January 2003. The campaign council characterises the payment as a bribe, while the statement refers to the explanation that it was part of a foreign-exchange transaction as an attempt to conceal wrongdoing.
The allegations require careful distinction between claims made by the political campaign council and findings established by a court or other competent authority.
The controversy follows the publication of the final award of a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral tribunal in Paris. The tribunal rejected claims brought by Sunrise Power and Adesanya against Nigeria in relation to the Mambilla project and ordered the claimants to reimburse a substantial portion of Nigeria’s legal costs.
The award examined the $500,000 payment made on January 30, 2003, from China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, to a United States bank account belonging to Jennifer Douglas, who was Atiku’s wife at the time.
However, an important distinction emerges from the reported findings: the tribunal raised concerns about the payment but did not establish that Atiku personally received a bribe or used his public office to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise. Premium Times reported that the tribunal could not exclude a possible connection between the payment and Atiku’s government role, while also stating that there was no evidence on the arbitration record that he had exercised his official duties to foster the contract award.
In its statement, the APC Presidential Campaign Council interpreted the tribunal’s examination of the payment and the disputed contract as evidence of corruption. The council alleged that Atiku and former Power Minister Olu Agunloye worked together to approve an unlawful agreement despite objections attributed to former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Dele Alake further accused Atiku of failing to appear in Paris to provide evidence concerning the payment and contrasted his alleged absence with the participation of former Presidents Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari in proceedings related to Nigeria’s defence.
The campaign council called on Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential election, arguing that the allegations undermine his suitability to lead the country. It also criticised his reported position on petrol subsidies and linked the stalled Mambilla project to missed economic opportunities for Taraba State.
These assertions represent the APC campaign council’s political interpretation of the arbitration dispute and are distinct from the tribunal’s reported evidentiary findings
Atiku challenged the APC to identify the specific passage in the final award where the tribunal found that he collected a $500,000 bribe, instructed Agunloye to award the Mambilla contract to Sunrise, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
His response reportedly emphasised that the tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s foreign-exchange explanation did not automatically establish that Atiku had received a bribe. He also argued that he was not a party to the arbitration and that the award did not impose financial liability on him.
The Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, proposed for Taraba State, has been the subject of longstanding contractual and arbitration disputes involving Sunrise Power and the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The recent ICC proceedings examined the claims connected to the project, including the purported Build-Operate-Transfer contract and payments involving individuals linked to the dispute. The tribunal’s rejection of Sunrise’s claims represents an outcome in Nigeria’s favour in the arbitration reported on September 16, 2026.
The project’s history, however, extends beyond the allegations concerning the 2003 payment. Questions surrounding contract validity, the conduct of public officials and the commercial arrangements associated with the proposed power development remain part of the wider controversy.
For the public, the key distinction is between the documented contents of the tribunal’s award, allegations made by political actors and responses from the individuals concerned. The reported award’s findings concerning the payment’s unsupported explanation and its possible connection to the Mambilla project should not be presented as an established criminal conviction or a definitive finding that Atiku accepted a bribe.
The APC has maintained its call for Atiku to leave the presidential race, while Atiku has rejected the interpretation advanced by the campaign council.
