THE long-running controversy surrounding Nigeria’s Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has entered a new phase following the decision of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate individuals and transactions highlighted in an international arbitration involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and its promoter, Leno Adesanya.
The development comes days after an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris ruled in favour of Nigeria, rejecting claims brought by Sunrise Power in connection with the disputed Mambilla project in Taraba State. The tribunal also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for legal costs.
In this Weekend features, News Point Nigeria dissects and analyses the situation, tracing how a project conceived as a major solution to Nigeria’s electricity challenges became entangled in years of contractual disputes, international arbitration, allegations of questionable financial dealings and now a fresh anti-corruption investigation.
At the centre of the latest development is the EFCC, which has reportedly constituted a special team to examine individuals and transactions named in the ICC proceedings. The team is being supervised by EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The commission is also examining financial transactions, relationships among the parties and properties that may be connected to proceeds of the transactions.
The investigation did not emerge in isolation. It followed the recent ICC award that rejected Sunrise Power’s claims against Nigeria over disputes associated with the development of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project. Sunrise had pursued claims running into billions of dollars, including a demand for $680 million in one arbitration and more than $2.7 billion in another related claim.
The tribunal also rejected Sunrise’s attempt to secure $400 million in satisfaction of a settlement sum and default payment. It further held that Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise, was bound by the arbitration agreement with Nigeria and that it had jurisdiction over Nigeria’s counterclaim against him and his firm. Sunrise and Adesanya were also directed to refund Nigeria’s legal expenses, amounting to about $11.8 million.
For the Federal Government, the decision was significant. President Bola Tinubu said the award affirmed Nigeria’s determination not to succumb to what he described as predatory and exploitative claims by corrupt local and international entities, their enablers and funders.
But beyond the immediate legal victory for Nigeria lies another, potentially more consequential, aspect of the tribunal’s decision: its examination of the relationships and transactions surrounding the Mambilla project.
The tribunal’s award named several Nigerians who held political or public offices and had dealings or associations with Adesanya at different stages of the long-running dispute.
Among those mentioned were former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar; his then-wife, Jennifer Douglas; former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami; former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye; former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki; his son, Abubakar Dasuki; former Solicitor-General of the Federation, Abdullahi Yola; and former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Power, Dere Awosika.
The appearance of their names in the tribunal proceedings, however, does not mean that each individual was found to have committed a crime. Rather, the tribunal examined specific relationships, payments, explanations and circumstances surrounding the Mambilla project, while the EFCC is now expected to determine whether any of those matters warrant criminal investigation or further action.
That distinction is important because the arbitration was a commercial proceeding, not a criminal trial. Atiku, for instance, has denied being indicted by the tribunal. His spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, has argued that the arbitration cannot be converted into a criminal conviction.
One of the transactions that attracted the tribunal’s attention involved a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya on January 30, 2003, from the Swiss bank account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Ltd, to a United States bank account belonging to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s former wife.
The timing of the payment became an important part of the tribunal’s consideration because it occurred less than four months before the Mambilla Build-Operate-Transfer contract was purportedly awarded to Sunrise by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.
Adesanya told the tribunal that the payment was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku through his bureau de change business.
The tribunal, however, said that explanation was not supported by documentary evidence. According to the award, Adesanya did not produce records showing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence concerning the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.
The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Douglas provided a witness statement or declaration supporting the explanation.
The circumstances surrounding the payment were therefore considered alongside Adesanya’s relationship with Atiku, his efforts to secure the Mambilla project for Sunrise and the timing of the transaction.
The tribunal also recalled that Atiku had led a Nigerian government delegation to Beijing in July 2002, with Adesanya among the delegation. During that visit, the Nigerian government and Chinese state-owned NCPEC signed a memorandum of understanding covering several projects, including Mambilla.
Against that background, the tribunal said the circumstances surrounding the payment raised what it described as “significant red flags”, particularly concerning the possible use of Atiku’s influence and the subsequent award of the contract.
Atiku has denied being indicted by the tribunal and has maintained that he was not responsible for awarding the contract. His camp has also challenged the political interpretation being placed on the tribunal’s findings.
Another major figure in the tribunal’s findings is Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
The tribunal severely criticised Malami’s handling of the dispute, including his relationship with Adesanya and his role in the settlement arrangements between Nigeria and Sunrise.
According to reports on the award, the tribunal found that Malami acted against Nigeria’s interests and described aspects of his relationship with Adesanya as inappropriate. It also concluded that the settlement arrangements at the centre of the arbitration were affected by corruption and could not bind the Federal Government in the circumstances because the necessary presidential approval was absent.
The issue is particularly significant because Malami is already facing proceedings in Nigeria. The EFCC has accused him, his wife and his son of conspiring to conceal, disguise and retain about N8.7 billion in alleged proceeds of unlawful activities.
The latest Mambilla investigation could therefore bring renewed scrutiny to his role in the project and the subsequent settlement negotiations.
Olu Agunloye, who served as Minister of Power and Steel when Sunrise was purportedly awarded the original Mambilla BOT contract, also featured prominently in the arbitration proceedings.
The tribunal examined payments linked to Agunloye, including money he said was received as part of what he described as “medical expenses”.
Agunloye is already facing a separate criminal trial over the Mambilla project on charges including forgery, receiving gratification and disobedience to presidential directives. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The tribunal’s consideration of his dealings with Adesanya now forms part of the wider body of material the EFCC is expected to examine.
The name of former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki also emerged in relation to a payment made by Adesanya to his son, Abubakar Dasuki.
The transaction, which the tribunal described as raising “considerable red flags,” involved a substantial payment made in December 2014.
Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was a loan. But the tribunal questioned that explanation, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence, the absence of a loan agreement and the lack of records showing how the transaction was accounted for by Sunrise.
The EFCC is now expected to examine the circumstances surrounding that payment as part of its broader review of the Mambilla-related transactions.
The tribunal’s scrutiny did not stop with the most prominent political figures.
Abdullahi Yola, a former Solicitor-General of the Federation, and Dere Awosika, a former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Power, were also mentioned in connection with payments and negotiations surrounding the project.
Yola represented the Ministry of Justice during negotiations relating to the General Project Execution Agreement and subsequent settlement documents, while Awosika participated in negotiations concerning the project in her capacity as Permanent Secretary.
The transactions involving both officials are now among the matters that could attract further scrutiny as investigators examine the network of relationships around Adesanya and Sunrise.
The EFCC investigation is expected to go beyond simply examining the names mentioned in the ICC award.
Sources familiar with the matter said investigators would look at the transactions themselves, the relationships between the parties, the movement of funds and properties that may have been acquired with proceeds connected to the dealings.
The commission would then determine what further steps are justified by the evidence, including whether particular assets meet the legal threshold for forfeiture.
Sources also said Atiku and Douglas may be invited by the EFCC for questioning in the coming days or weeks. Adesanya, who sits at the centre of the dispute and the financial dealings examined by the tribunal, is also expected to come under investigation.
A top EFCC official confirmed the new development to News Point Nigeria, while EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale said he was aware of the development but had not been fully briefed on the details.
The latest development has inevitably spilled into the political arena.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council, on Friday, accused former Vice-President Atiku of compromising Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla project and called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.
Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, rejected the call and challenged the APC to produce the portion of the tribunal’s final award in which Atiku was found to have received a bribe, abused his office, influenced the award of the contract to Sunrise Power or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.
“A commercial arbitration did not indict Atiku, did not convict Atiku and cannot be transformed into a criminal verdict by repetition,” Shaibu said.
The exchange highlights one of the central issues surrounding the unfolding controversy: the difference between what the ICC tribunal actually determined in a commercial arbitration and what political actors may seek to infer from those findings.
The Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has remained one of Nigeria’s most enduring infrastructure stories.
Conceived as a major hydropower project capable of adding thousands of megawatts to Nigeria’s electricity generation capacity, its history has been marked by contractual disagreements, changing administrations, competing claims and prolonged legal battles.
The latest ICC decision has removed one major legal obstacle for the Federal Government, but it has simultaneously opened another chapter: the examination of the financial and personal relationships that surrounded the project over the years.
For Nigeria, the significance of the EFCC investigation will ultimately depend not on the number of prominent names appearing in the tribunal award, but on what investigators can establish from documentary evidence, financial records and testimony.
For the individuals mentioned, the distinction between being named in an arbitration award and being criminally found culpable remains crucial. Any further action by the EFCC would therefore have to be based on evidence obtained through its own investigation and the applicable legal process.
And for the Mambilla project itself, the hope is that the conclusion of the international arbitration will finally allow attention to return to the question that has remained unresolved for decades: whether Nigeria can turn one of its most ambitious power projects from a long-running legal and political saga into a functioning source of electricity for the country.