For more than two decades, the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has represented one of Nigeria's great unfinished promises.
A massive hydropower project in Taraba State, designed to transform electricity generation in Africa's most populous country, became entangled in contracts, presidential directives, arbitration, political influence and allegations of corruption.
Now, a 616-page final award from an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal has provided perhaps the most detailed account yet of the financial relationships surrounding the dispute.
The tribunal did not simply decide whether Nigeria owed Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited billions of dollars.
It examined how Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya interacted financially with people connected to some of the most powerful offices in Nigeria — including the family of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, former Power Minister Olu Agunloye, former Solicitor-General Abdullahi Yola, former Permanent Secretary Dere Awosika and former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki.
The award, dated September 16, 2026, ultimately rejected Sunrise's claims against Nigeria.
But the money trail is arguably as consequential as the headline arbitration victory.
It raises a much bigger question:
How did a multibillion-dollar national infrastructure project become surrounded by private payments, intermediaries, relatives of public officials and competing explanations for where the money was going?
The case Nigeria was fighting
Sunrise had pursued arbitration against Nigeria over the Mambilla project, claiming that the federal government had breached obligations arising from an agreement connected to the project.
The company's original claim was approximately $2.35 billion.
The dispute later produced a proposed $200 million settlement, followed by an addendum that potentially increased Nigeria's exposure to $400 million plus interest.
The ICC tribunal rejected Sunrise's claims in their entirety.
It also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for approximately $11.82 million in legal fees and expenses, alongside arbitration costs.
That alone represents a major financial consequence.
But buried inside the award was something potentially more important for understanding how the dispute developed:
the tribunal's examination of the people and payments surrounding the Mambilla project.
The $500,000 payment to Atiku's then-wife
One of the most politically sensitive transactions involved $500,000 transferred to Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, who was then married to Atiku Abubakar, Nigeria's vice-president.
The payment was made on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya.
It came less than four months before Olu Agunloye, then minister of power and steel, purportedly awarded Sunrise a build-operate-transfer contract for the Mambilla project.
That timing immediately attracted scrutiny.
Adesanya did not deny making the payment.
His explanation was that it was a legitimate foreign-exchange transaction undertaken for Atiku.
But the tribunal found serious problems with that explanation.
There were no contemporaneous documents establishing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his representatives, or the commercial purpose of the transaction.
Neither Atiku nor Douglas testified before the tribunal to corroborate the explanation.
The tribunal therefore refused to accept Adesanya's explanation that the payment had been established as a bona fide foreign-exchange transaction.
But an important distinction must be maintained.
The tribunal did not find that Atiku received a bribe.
It expressly noted that there was no evidence before it establishing that Atiku had actually exercised his official duties to secure the Mambilla award for Sunrise.
However, because the foreign-exchange explanation was not established, the tribunal said it could not exclude a connection between the payment and Atiku's influential role in the federal government's handling of the Mambilla project.
That is a serious finding about the transaction.
It is not the same thing as a corruption conviction against Atiku.
Why the timing mattered
The tribunal considered the $500,000 payment alongside Adesanya's relationship with Atiku and his efforts to obtain the Mambilla project.
Evidence before the tribunal showed that Adesanya had been pursuing the project since at least 2001.
Atiku had also been involved in the government's engagement around the project.
In July 2002, Atiku led a Nigerian delegation to China that included Adesanya. During the visit, Nigeria and a Chinese state-owned company signed a memorandum concerning several power projects, including Mambilla, then envisaged as a 2,600MW project estimated at approximately $4.5 billion.
The tribunal concluded that Atiku possessed considerable political influence within the federal government during the relevant period.
But influence is not proof of corruption.
That distinction matters enormously.
The tribunal's findings concern the credibility and circumstances surrounding a payment. They should not be rewritten as a finding that every person whose name appears in the award committed a crime.
Agunloye and the ₦5.2 million trail
The next important trail leads to Olu Agunloye, the minister who notified Sunrise of the purported Mambilla contract award in May 2003.
Sixteen years later, in 2019, money began moving again.
Three payments were made through Adesanya's aide, Jide Sotinrin:
- ₦3.6 million on August 10, 2019;
- ₦500,000 on October 22, 2019;
- ₦1.121 million on November 13, 2019.
Together, they amounted to approximately ₦5.22 million.
The explanation was medical assistance.
According to evidence reported from the tribunal and earlier EFCC proceedings, Sotinrin described the payment as assistance for medical treatment. Agunloye also reportedly told investigators that the money related to a medical emergency involving his son.
But investigators were unable to independently establish that the stated medical purpose actually accounted for the payments.
The ICC tribunal similarly identified inconsistencies and insufficient independent evidence supporting the explanation.
And there was another problem:
the payments occurred while the Mambilla dispute was still active.
That timing gave the transactions additional significance.
The tribunal treated the circumstances as serious red flags, while stopping short of saying that the evidence established a specific corrupt act by Agunloye in exchange for the money.
That nuance is important.
A suspicious payment is not automatically a proven bribe.
But a suspicious payment involving a former public official connected directly to the underlying contract deserves scrutiny.
The $50,000 payment to Abdullahi Yola
Another name appearing in the tribunal's examination is Abdullahi Yola, a former Solicitor-General of the Federation.
Nigeria alleged that Yola had been involved in negotiations concerning the General Project Execution Agreement and related settlement arrangements.
According to the case materials, Yola received approximately $50,000 from Adesanya through Lutin Investments in November 2015.
Nigeria argued that the amount was significant when compared with Yola's annual salary and represented evidence of corruption and conspiracy.
Again, the significance lies not simply in the existence of a payment.
It lies in the combination of:
who paid, who received, when the payment occurred, what official responsibilities existed, and whether there was an identifiable legitimate commercial purpose.
Those are precisely the questions that make money trails important in corruption investigations.
Dere Awosika and payments to her son's company
The tribunal also examined payments involving Dere Awosika, who participated in negotiations surrounding the project.
Nigeria alleged that between 2015 and 2016, 355 Integrated Services Limited, a company belonging to Awosika's son, received three payments from Lutin Investments totalling approximately $135,000.
The payments were presented as investments in the son's business.
Nigeria argued that the payments formed part of a wider pattern of financial relationships surrounding officials connected to the Mambilla negotiations.
The evidence was considered by the tribunal in assessing Nigeria's allegations.
This is another place where headlines can become misleading.
A payment to a relative's company does not, by itself, establish that the official committed corruption.
But when the recipient's parent is involved in negotiations concerning a multibillion-dollar government project, the transaction becomes a legitimate subject for scrutiny.
The central question becomes:
Why was the money paid, and what — if anything — did the payer receive in return?
Then comes Sambo Dasuki
The tribunal also examined dealings involving Sambo Dasuki, the former National Security Adviser.
Reports on the award have highlighted a payment of approximately $1.74 million involving Dasuki's son as part of the wider financial trail examined by the tribunal.
The significance of this transaction should again be approached carefully.
The fact that money moved to a relative of a powerful public official does not automatically establish that the official personally received a bribe.
But it becomes highly relevant when the payment is examined within a broader pattern of financial dealings involving people connected to government decision-making.
That was one of the central challenges facing the tribunal:
Were these ordinary private transactions, or were they financial relationships connected to Sunrise's efforts to secure and protect its position in the Mambilla project?
For some transactions, the evidence was insufficient to establish the precise official act allegedly purchased.
But the tribunal did not treat the overall pattern as irrelevant.
The most damaging finding: Malami
The most serious findings in the award concern former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami.
Unlike several of the other transactions, where the tribunal identified red flags but did not establish a specific corrupt exchange, the tribunal reached a much stronger conclusion concerning Malami.
It found that Malami and Adesanya entered into a corrupt arrangement connected with the proposed settlement of the Mambilla dispute.
This finding concerns the period when Nigeria was trying to settle Sunrise's claims.
The original settlement contemplated payment of $200 million to Sunrise.
Then came an addendum.
Under the revised arrangement, Nigeria's potential exposure could rise by another $200 million, while interest provisions also became more onerous.
The tribunal concluded that it could not identify a corresponding benefit for Nigeria from those revised terms.
It therefore found that Malami was not negotiating the revised settlement solely in Nigeria's interest.
In the tribunal's assessment, he was effectively acting for Sunrise.
The promised cut
This is where the story becomes particularly explosive.
The tribunal examined evidence concerning communications between Adesanya and Malami and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that a corrupt agreement existed under which Malami was promised a share of the money Sunrise expected to receive.
The tribunal found that Malami cooperated in efforts connected with the settlement that could expose Nigeria to substantial financial liability.
But the award also contained an important limitation.
The tribunal did not find that Malami was promised a share of the additional $200 million default penalty.
It said the available evidence did not establish that particular allegation.
That distinction matters because the ICC award was not simply a political accusation.
It was an evidentiary process in which the tribunal separated allegations it considered established from allegations it did not.
From “criminal of the highest order” to settlement partner
Perhaps one of the strangest elements of the Malami story is how dramatically his position toward Adesanya changed.
The tribunal noted that in 2018, Malami had described Adesanya in highly negative terms and supported Nigeria's decision to defend the arbitration.
Yet by 2020, Malami was participating in negotiations that resulted in a settlement favourable to Sunrise.
The tribunal found this transformation difficult to reconcile with his earlier position.
It also examined communications between the two men.
In one message, Adesanya thanked Malami for his efforts to ensure that Sunrise was paid.
Malami responded.
The tribunal found the exchange deeply troubling in the context of Malami's constitutional role as Nigeria's chief law officer.
Buhari said no
The settlement saga became even more extraordinary because the tribunal found that former President Muhammadu Buhari did not approve the settlement.
The proposed agreement was presented to Buhari in April 2020.
He rejected it.
Later, Malami again sought presidential approval.
Buhari again responded that it was not approved.
The tribunal found that no presidential approval was ultimately obtained for the settlement agreements.
Yet the agreements had already been signed.
That raised a fundamental legal question:
Could senior officials bind the Federal Republic of Nigeria to a multihundred-million-dollar settlement without the required presidential approval?
The tribunal's answer was effectively no.
It concluded that Malami and then-Power Minister Saleh Mamman lacked the authority to bind the federal government in the circumstances.
The tribunal also found the settlement agreements unenforceable because they were products of corruption and violated Nigerian public policy.
Nigeria escaped a potentially enormous bill
The financial implications are difficult to overstate.
Sunrise's original claim was about $2.35 billion.
The later settlement dispute involved another potential $400 million, before interest.
The tribunal rejected the claims.
It also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to pay Nigeria approximately $11.82 million in legal costs and expenses, with additional arbitration costs reported at about $414,125.
For Nigeria, the ruling therefore did more than end a long-running arbitration.
It removed a potentially enormous financial exposure.
President Bola Tinubu described the judgment as clearing what he called the biggest legal hurdle to the continuation of the Mambilla project.
But Mambilla still has a much bigger problem
Winning an arbitration does not generate electricity.
The Mambilla project has existed for decades as a symbol of Nigeria's inability to convert enormous infrastructure ambitions into functioning infrastructure.
The original Sunrise agreement itself dates to 2003.
The project became entangled in disputes over whether the contract had ever been properly authorised.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has maintained that his government never approved the contract and said he had directed Agunloye to withdraw the relevant memorandum at the Federal Executive Council meeting of May 21, 2003.
Yet the following day, Agunloye sent Sunrise a letter purporting to award the project.
That sequence sits at the heart of the dispute.
How could a minister commit the Nigerian government to a project worth billions of dollars if the Federal Executive Council had not approved it?
That question has now existed for more than 23 years.
The real scandal is bigger than one payment
It would be easy to turn the Mambilla story into a list of sensational figures:
$500,000 here.
₦5.2 million there.
$50,000 somewhere else.
$135,000 to a relative's company.
$1.74 million involving a powerful official's son.
$200 million settlement.
$400 million potential exposure.
$2.35 billion arbitration claim.
But the real story is not any individual figure.
It is the network.
The tribunal was examining relationships involving businessmen, ministers, senior civil servants, relatives, intermediaries, lawyers and presidential offices — all orbiting one of Nigeria's most valuable infrastructure projects.
And that raises the fundamental question that Nigeria has struggled with for decades:
When public power and private money repeatedly meet around a government contract, how can citizens know where legitimate business ends and influence-peddling begins?
The tribunal's caution matters
There is also a danger in reporting this story carelessly.
The ICC did not declare everyone whose name appears in the award corrupt.
It did not find that Atiku personally received a bribe.
It did not establish every alleged quid pro quo involving Agunloye, Awosika, Yola or Dasuki.
In several instances, it identified serious or significant red flags but found that the available evidence did not prove the particular official action allegedly purchased.
That distinction is essential.
The strongest finding was concerning Malami and Adesanya's settlement arrangement.
For the other transactions, the tribunal's conclusions were more nuanced.
Good journalism should preserve those distinctions rather than turning every suspicious transaction into a criminal conviction.
The unanswered question for Nigeria
The Mambilla project was supposed to help solve Nigeria's electricity crisis.
Instead, it became a case study in how public infrastructure can become trapped between political transitions, contractual disputes and allegations surrounding powerful individuals.
More than two decades later, the ICC has now rejected Sunrise's multibillion-dollar claims.
Nigeria has avoided a potentially devastating financial liability.
But the country is left with a deeper question.
Why did it take an international arbitration tribunal in Paris to reconstruct a financial trail surrounding a Nigerian public project?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question is this:
How many other major Nigerian infrastructure projects have financial relationships that the public has never seen?
Mambilla is not merely a story about Leno Adesanya.
It is a story about what happens when a national project becomes entangled with private interests and public authority.
It is a story about the weakness of institutional safeguards.
It is a story about why procurement, presidential approval, ministerial authority and financial transparency matter.
And above all, it is a reminder that when billions of dollars are attached to a public project, the money trail is often as important as the contract itself.
The ICC award has now placed much of that trail on the public record.
The next responsibility belongs to Nigeria.
Not simply to celebrate that the country won the arbitration.
But to ask what the country will do with everything the arbitration revealed.
Comments
Post a Comment