Daud Olatunji
The APC Presidential Campaign Council, in a statement issued on Friday by its spokesman, Dele Alake, said the revelations arising from the arbitration had raised questions that, in its view, should disqualify Atiku from seeking the presidency in 2027.
The controversy centres on a payment of $500,000 transferred on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, into Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States.
The payment came less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded a build-operate-transfer contract for the Mambilla project by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.
However, while the APC has portrayed the development as evidence of wrongdoing by Atiku, the tribunal itself did not find that Atiku received a bribe or that he used his position as Vice-President to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise.
Rather, the tribunal said the circumstances surrounding the payment raised “significant red flags” but also expressly observed that there was no evidence before it establishing that Atiku had exercised his official duties in a manner that facilitated Sunrise’s contract award.
The distinction is significant because the ICC proceeding was between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government of Nigeria. Atiku was not a party to the arbitration and did not testify before the tribunal.
According to the tribunal award reviewed in reports published on Friday, Adesanya acknowledged transferring the $500,000 to Douglas.
His explanation was that the payment represented a foreign-exchange transaction undertaken for Atiku, with dollars allegedly purchased with naira.
The tribunal, however, said the explanation was not supported by documentary evidence.
It said Adesanya did not provide records showing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence relating to the transaction or documents establishing its commercial purpose.
The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Douglas provided a witness statement or declaration supporting the explanation.
The payment was particularly scrutinised because of its timing and Adesanya’s involvement in efforts to secure the Mambilla project.
The tribunal noted that Adesanya had been lobbying for the project and had engaged with Atiku, who was Vice-President and involved in the Federal Government’s handling of the project.
It also examined the fact that Atiku had led a government delegation to China in July 2002, with Adesanya among those involved, during discussions concerning power projects, including Mambilla.
Despite the circumstances, the tribunal stopped short of establishing a causal link between the payment and the eventual contract award.
It said there was no evidence on the record showing that Atiku actually exercised his governmental duties in a way that fostered the award of the contract to Sunrise.
Alake, however, argued that the tribunal’s findings warranted political consequences for the ADC presidential candidate.
The APC council accused Atiku of compromising Nigeria’s interest in the Mambilla project and questioned his decision to contest the 2027 presidential election in light of the allegations.
The ruling party’s campaign council also pointed to the enormous financial implications of the Mambilla dispute, including claims that had exposed Nigeria to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities.
It further drew parallels between the Mambilla controversy and other major contractual disputes involving the Federal Government.
The APC also criticised Atiku for not appearing before the arbitration tribunal, noting that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari had testified in proceedings relating to Nigeria’s defence.
The campaign council consequently called on Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential contest.
Atiku has rejected the APC’s interpretation of the tribunal proceedings.
In a statement through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former Vice-President accused the APC of presenting allegations considered during the arbitration as though they amounted to a corruption verdict against him.
Atiku challenged the APC to identify any portion of the tribunal’s final award where it found that he received a $500,000 bribe, influenced the award of the Mambilla contract, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
The former Vice-President’s position is consistent with the tribunal’s express qualification that it had not established that he used his public office to facilitate the award.
The Mambilla project has remained embroiled in contractual and legal disputes for more than two decades.
Sunrise commenced arbitration against Nigeria in 2017, seeking about $2.35bn over an alleged breach of the 2003 agreement. The ICC tribunal ultimately rejected Sunrise’s claims and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for a substantial portion of its legal costs.
The tribunal also examined payments made to Agunloye, who was Power and Steel Minister when Sunrise was purportedly awarded the Mambilla contract.
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
