Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, and his successor, Lateef Fagbemi, have offered contrasting accounts of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration ruling on the long-running Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project dispute.
The ICC tribunal in Paris recently rejected claims by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited with a combined potential value of more than $3.38 billion, bringing a major development to the decades-old dispute over the Mambilla project in Taraba State.
The claims included a demand linked to a 2020 settlement agreement and a separate compensation claim connected to the development of the hydroelectric project.
Fagbemi, the current Attorney-General, said the tribunal found that the settlement agreements involving Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya and former Nigerian officials were affected by corruption and were therefore unenforceable.
He said the tribunal’s findings showed that the dispute had caused prolonged delays to the Mambilla project, preventing Nigeria from advancing a project expected to generate thousands of megawatts of electricity.
Fagbemi also said the ruling demonstrated that Nigeria would defend itself against claims arising from agreements that do not comply with the country’s laws and public policy.
Malami, however, rejected suggestions that his actions while serving as AGF were motivated by corruption or a promise of personal financial benefit.
In a statement issued through his media aide, Mohammed Bello Doka, Malami said the Mambilla dispute existed long before his tenure and had passed through several administrations, ministries and Attorneys-General.
He explained that the government’s consideration at the time was whether a longstanding dispute involving potentially significant financial exposure could be resolved through a smaller negotiated settlement.
Malami also said the proposed $200 million settlement was never paid to Sunrise after former President Muhammadu Buhari declined to approve the payment.
According to him, he subsequently instructed government lawyers to resist efforts to enforce the settlement against Nigeria and preserve the Federal Government’s legal position.
The former AGF further argued that the ICC arbitration was a commercial proceeding rather than a criminal trial and said the tribunal’s findings should not be described as a criminal conviction against him.
The tribunal, however, found on the balance of probabilities that a corrupt arrangement existed in relation to the settlement agreement and its addendum. It also found the agreements unenforceable because of corruption and other legal considerations.
The dispute dates back to 2003, when Sunrise was awarded a build-operate-transfer contract for the development of a 3,050-megawatt Mambilla hydropower plant at an estimated cost of about $6 billion.
Sunrise later commenced ICC arbitration against Nigeria in 2017, seeking approximately $2.354 billion over an alleged breach of the original agreement.
A subsequent settlement provided for a $200 million payment, while an addendum created additional financial exposure in the event of default. Sunrise later pursued further claims linked to the settlement and the broader project dispute.
In its latest ruling, the ICC tribunal rejected the claims against Nigeria and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for legal and arbitration costs.
The latest disagreement between Malami and Fagbemi has renewed public attention on the circumstances surrounding the settlement, the conduct of officials involved and the prolonged legal history of the Mambilla project.
