The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council has called on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race following fresh controversy surrounding the long-running dispute over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State.
The demand followed revelations contained in the final award of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris concerning a $500,000 payment made in January 2003 by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, to Jennifer Douglas, who was then married to Atiku.
The APC campaign council, through its spokesperson, Dele Alake, argued that the timing and circumstances of the payment raised serious questions about Atiku’s role in the Mambilla project while he was vice-president.
The council subsequently urged Atiku to step aside from the 2027 presidential contest, alleging that the controversy raised questions about his conduct in public office and his handling of matters connected to the proposed 3,960-megawatt hydroelectric project.
The $500,000 payment
According to evidence examined during the ICC proceedings, Adesanya transferred $500,000 on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company he controlled, into an account belonging to Jennifer Douglas in the United States.
Adesanya reportedly told the tribunal that the transaction was part of a foreign-exchange arrangement carried out for Atiku.
The timing of the payment attracted particular attention because it occurred during the period when Sunrise Power was pursuing the Mambilla project. Sunrise had submitted its tender in January 2003, while a letter issued by then Minister of Power Olu Agunloye on May 22, 2003, purported to award the project to the company under a build-operate-transfer arrangement.
The tribunal examined the proximity between the payment and the purported contract award as part of its assessment of the evidence surrounding the Mambilla dispute.
However, the distinction between the tribunal’s findings and the subsequent political claims has become central to the controversy.
Reports on the award indicate that the tribunal found significant problems with Adesanya’s explanation of the $500,000 transaction, including the absence of documentary or independent witness evidence supporting his account of the alleged foreign-exchange transaction.
At the same time, reports of the award indicate that the tribunal did not find that Atiku personally received a bribe or establish that he used his office to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise.
APC links payment to Mambilla contract
The APC Presidential Campaign Council has nevertheless argued that the circumstances surrounding the payment warrant political scrutiny.
In his statement, Dele Alake accused Atiku of compromising Nigeria’s interests and alleged that the former vice-president worked with Agunloye to facilitate the Sunrise contract despite objections from former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The council pointed to the fact that the payment was made to Atiku’s then-wife only months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded the Mambilla contract.
The APC therefore argued that the issue goes beyond the payment itself and concerns the broader circumstances in which the Mambilla agreement was pursued during the final months of Obasanjo’s first administration.
Atiku rejects APC’s interpretation
Atiku has rejected the APC’s interpretation of the arbitration proceedings.
Through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku challenged the APC to identify the specific portion of the tribunal’s final award where he was found to have received a $500,000 bribe, directed Agunloye to award the contract to Sunrise, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
Atiku argued that the arbitration should not be presented as a corruption judgment against him because he was not a party to the proceedings and the tribunal did not impose liability or damages on him.
He also disputed the suggestion that he avoided the arbitration process to escape scrutiny, arguing that the award did not establish that he had been summoned to testify.
The former vice-president’s position is that the APC is conflating allegations and evidence examined during an arbitration with findings actually made against him by the tribunal.
What the ICC tribunal decided
The Mambilla arbitration itself ended with a significant victory for the Federal Government.
The ICC tribunal rejected claims brought by Sunrise Power and its promoter against Nigeria over the disputed project. It also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 percent of its legal fees and expenses, reported at approximately $11.82 million.
The tribunal’s final award, dated September 16, 2026, also examined a wider network of transactions associated with Sunrise’s efforts to advance its interests in the Mambilla project.
Reports based on the award say the tribunal examined payments involving people connected to several former public officials, including Atiku, former Power Minister Olu Agunloye, former Solicitor-General Abdullahi Yola, former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Power Dere Awosika and former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki.
Separate findings concerning former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami have also emerged from the award. Reports say the tribunal found serious problems with a later settlement involving Malami and Sunrise and concluded that the agreement was not binding on Nigeria because it lacked the required presidential approval.
Those later developments are distinct from the $500,000 payment involving Atiku’s former wife.
Why the controversy matters in 2027
The Mambilla dispute has now become another point of political confrontation ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
For the APC campaign council, the payment and the circumstances surrounding the Mambilla contract raise questions about Atiku’s record in government and provide grounds for demanding that he reconsider his presidential ambition.
For Atiku and his supporters, however, the central issue is whether the tribunal actually made a finding of corruption against him. His campaign argues that allegations considered during the arbitration cannot automatically be presented as a judicial or arbitral finding of guilt.
The controversy therefore turns on two separate questions: what the ICC tribunal actually established about the $500,000 payment, and what political conclusions the competing parties draw from those findings.
With Atiku now representing the ADC in the 2027 presidential contest, the Mambilla controversy is likely to remain part of the political debate over his record as a former vice-president and his bid to return to the presidency.
