Atiku speaks on ‘$500,000 Mambilla bribe allegation’

Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, has broken his silence on allegations that he collected a $500,000 bribe in 2023, allegedly through his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, in connection with the disputed Mambilla Power Project.

Atiku, through his spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, accused the ruling All Progressives Congress of attempting to manufacture a tribunal verdict that could be used to indict him.

The controversy followed Nigeria’s victory against Sunrise Power at the International Chamber of Commerce over the dispute surrounding the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State.

APC links Atiku to disputed payment

Amid the development, reports emerged that Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power, allegedly paid $500,000 to Atiku’s former wife, Douglas, through Castle Investments Limited.

The payment has become part of the political dispute surrounding the Mambilla project, with the APC Presidential Council calling on Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.

The council made the call in a statement issued on Friday by the Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake, following the tribunal’s ruling in favour of Nigeria.

Atiku, however, rejected the interpretation placed on the tribunal award by the ruling party.

He argued that the APC had taken an aspect of the award and “amputated” its legal meaning in an attempt to establish wrongdoing against him.

Challenging the tribunal interpretation

Atiku said the APC’s argument was based on what he described as a false and intellectually lazy premise.

He challenged the party to produce the specific portion of the final award where the tribunal found that he collected a $500,000 bribe, instructed former Power Minister Olu Agunloye to award the Mambilla contract to Sunrise, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy to secure the contract.

“There is no such finding,” Atiku said.

“What the APC has done is intellectually dishonest. It has converted suspicion into guilt, an unexplained transaction into a proven bribe, and an allegation canvassed before arbitrators into a verdict the arbitrators themselves never delivered.

“That is not an interpretation of the award. It is a political fabrication.”

He further argued that the APC could not manufacture a finding that was absent from the tribunal’s final award simply because the actual decision did not provide the political conclusion the party was seeking.

Payment allegation disputed

According to Atiku, Nigeria had alleged before the tribunal that the $500,000 transfer was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract.

He said Sunrise Power and Adesanya denied the allegation, while Adesanya offered an explanation for the transaction which the tribunal did not accept.

Atiku, however, maintained that the tribunal’s rejection of Adesanya’s explanation did not automatically establish that the payment was a bribe to him.

“Nigeria alleged before the tribunal that the transfer was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract. Sunrise and Adesanya denied that allegation. Adesanya offered an explanation which the tribunal did not accept,” he said.

“But an unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar.”

Atiku maintained that if the tribunal had intended to establish that the $500,000 was a bribe paid to him, it would have stated so explicitly in its award.

He also said the same would have applied if the tribunal had found that he abused his office to procure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise.

“If the tribunal wanted to find that the $500,000 was a bribe paid to Atiku, it could have said so plainly. If it wanted to find that Atiku abused his office to procure the contract for Sunrise, it could have said so plainly,” he stated.

“The APC cannot insert into an international arbitral award words and conclusions that the arbitrators themselves did not put there,” Atiku added.