The Independent Media and Policy Initiative (IMPI) has called for a probe into a $500,000 payment made in 2003 to Jennifer Douglas, the then-wife of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya.
The demand followed the recent ruling of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in the long-running dispute between Sunrise Power and the Federal Government over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
In a policy brief signed by its chairman, Dr Omoniyi Akinsiju, IMPI said its review of the tribunal’s more than 600-page ruling had raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the payment and warranted further scrutiny by Nigerian authorities.
According to the policy group, $500,000 was transferred on January 30, 2003, from the Swiss bank account of China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, to a bank account belonging to Douglas in the United States.
The payment was made less than four months before Sunrise Power was purportedly awarded the Mambilla Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract.
The ICC tribunal said Adesanya had described the transaction as part of a foreign-exchange deal carried out on behalf of Atiku. However, the tribunal found that the explanation was not backed by documentary evidence.
The tribunal noted that Adesanya had failed to produce records establishing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions allegedly issued by Atiku or his aides, correspondence, or other documents demonstrating the commercial purpose of the transaction.
IMPI said the payment was central to the issues arising from the arbitration proceedings.
“For us, the crux of the Mambilla-ICC saga is the $500,000 cash transfer and the purpose it was supposed to serve in securing the Mambilla Power project concession,” the group said.
The organisation described the tribunal’s findings as “significant red flags,” pointing particularly to the timing of the payment and Adesanya’s efforts to secure the Mambilla project.
IMPI also raised questions about the relevance of Atiku’s position as vice president at the time the transaction occurred.
It pointed to the tribunal’s observation that Atiku had led a Nigerian government delegation to Beijing in July 2002, which included Adesanya. During the visit, the Nigerian government and Chinese state-owned NCPEC signed a memorandum of understanding covering several projects, including the Mambilla project.
According to IMPI, Atiku’s contention that he was not a member of the official procurement panel did not, on its own, resolve questions concerning the extent of executive influence that may have existed around the project.
The group cited the tribunal’s observation that Atiku exercised a “considerable degree of power and influence” over federal administrative affairs during the period.
However, IMPI acknowledged an important qualification in the tribunal’s findings: the ICC did not establish that the $500,000 payment constituted a direct quid pro quo for the Mambilla contract, nor did it find that Atiku had used his official position to secure the award for Sunrise Power.
Indeed, the tribunal expressly stated that there was no evidence before it showing that Atiku had exercised his responsibilities as a government official in a manner that facilitated the award of the contract to Sunrise.
At the same time, the tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation of the $500,000 as a bona fide foreign-exchange transaction. It also said it could not rule out the possibility that the payment was connected to Atiku’s role in the Federal Government in relation to the Mambilla project.
Against this backdrop, IMPI said Nigerian investigative and judicial institutions should examine the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
The organisation specifically mentioned institutions including the Code of Conduct Tribunal, while also questioning whether the payment had been properly declared.
It argued that the circumstances surrounding the transaction raised broader questions about public accountability and potential conflicts of interest involving a senior government official.
“The ICC proceedings, although primarily concerned with contractual claims between Sunrise Power and Nigeria, had exposed issues that should be independently examined by Nigerian authorities,” IMPI said.
The controversy is linked to a 2003 BOT agreement between the Federal Government and Sunrise Power for the development of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
The dispute later escalated into international arbitration, with Sunrise Power pursuing claims against Nigeria that ran into billions of dollars.
The ICC tribunal has now rejected the related claims, bringing another major chapter to the protracted dispute while leaving questions surrounding the 2003 payment open to further scrutiny by Nigerian authorities.
