Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has denied the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s allegation that he received a $500,000 bribe linked to the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
The denial followed the APC Campaign Council’s call for Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over the alleged payment, which the ruling party linked to the controversial award of the Mambilla power project contract to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.
Atiku, through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the APC to produce the portion of the Mambilla arbitration award where the tribunal found that he received a bribe, influenced the contract or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
He said the tribunal’s consideration of a $500,000 transfer involving businessman Leno Adesanya did not amount to a finding that Atiku received a bribe or corruptly influenced the award of the contract.
According to him, the tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation that the money, which was transferred through China Castle Investments to Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, was connected to a foreign-exchange transaction because there was no documentary evidence to support the explanation.
The ADC presidential candidate argued that the rejection of Adesanya’s explanation should not be interpreted as a finding that he received a bribe or used his office to influence the Sunrise contract.
He noted that Nigeria had alleged before the tribunal that the $500,000 transaction was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract, while Sunrise and Adesanya denied the allegation.
“An unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar,” he said.
Atiku also rejected the APC’s claim that he deliberately stayed away from the Paris arbitration after being summoned to testify, saying he was neither a party to the proceedings nor a witness before the tribunal.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal,” he said.
He argued that the contents of the arbitration award did not establish that the tribunal itself summoned him, ordered him to testify or found that he disobeyed any directive to appear.
According to him, there was a difference between a party to an arbitration seeking an individual’s testimony and the tribunal formally summoning that person to appear.
Atiku asserted that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari testified on behalf of Nigeria during the proceedings, while former ministers Babatunde Fashola and Suleiman Adamu also participated in Nigeria’s defence.
He argued that their participation in the proceedings could not be used as evidence that he had been summoned by the tribunal and subsequently refused to appear.
The former Vice President also pointed out that the arbitration was between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, Leno Adesanya and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and that the proceedings did not impose damages, costs or any other liability on him personally.
He said the tribunal dismissed Sunrise’s claims and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses.
Atiku also drew a comparison with a 1993 United States civil-forfeiture case involving property held in President Bola Tinubu’s name, arguing that allegations and judicial findings should not be treated as the same thing.
He cited an October 4, 1993 order by Judge John A. Nordberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, directing the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
Atiku said the order was a civil forfeiture proceeding and did not amount to a criminal conviction of Tinubu personally for drug trafficking, using the case to argue that the same distinction should be maintained in the Mambilla controversy.
“The same standard must apply to everyone. Do not convert allegation into conviction. Do not transfer findings from one person to another. Do not manufacture a verdict where none has been produced,” Atiku added.
He subsequently challenged the APC to identify the specific paragraphs in the Mambilla arbitration award where the tribunal found that he solicited or received a bribe, instructed former Power Minister Olu Agunloye to award the contract to Sunrise or was culpable of corruption.
“These are not questions of political opinion. They are questions of record. They have factual answers,” he said.
Atiku urged the APC to publish any portion of the arbitration award that supports its allegations and allow Nigerians to examine the tribunal’s findings themselves.