2027: APC Lists Reasons Atiku Should Quit Race Over Mambilla Arbitration
The All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council has intensified its political offensive against African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, citing questions arising from the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project arbitration as grounds for its demand that the former vice-president withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.
In a statement issued in Abuja by its spokesman, Dele Alake, the APC Campaign Council argued that issues examined during the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration proceedings in Paris raised questions about Atiku’s role in events surrounding the controversial 3,960-megawatt Mambilla project.
At the centre of the controversy is 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 Atiku’s wife.
The transfer was made through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, months before the purported award of a Build-Operate-Transfer contract to Sunrise for the Mambilla project.
During the arbitration, Adesanya maintained that the money was connected to a foreign-exchange transaction undertaken for Atiku.
However, the tribunal raised significant concerns about that explanation, noting the absence of documentary or independent witness evidence demonstrating the underlying naira payment, applicable exchange rate, instructions relating to the transaction or other documentation establishing its stated commercial purpose.
The tribunal also drew attention to the timing of the transaction and the purported contract award, observing a close temporal connection between the January 30, 2003 payment and the alleged May 22, 2003 award.
The APC Campaign Council subsequently identified the transaction as one of several issues it said Atiku should explain to Nigerians as the country moves towards the 2027 presidential election.
Another issue raised by the campaign council concerns the circumstances surrounding the Mambilla contract itself.
The APC alleged that the agreement was pursued despite questions over whether the Federal Executive Council had properly authorised it and despite reservations attributed to then-President Olusegun Obasanjo.
It further argued that the controversy eventually exposed Nigeria to enormous international arbitration claims after the Mambilla project failed to proceed as envisaged.
Sunrise had pursued substantial compensation against Nigeria over the dispute, including a $680 million settlement-related claim and another claim exceeding $2.7 billion.
Nigeria ultimately prevailed in the arbitration, with the tribunal rejecting Sunrise’s claims and ordering the company and Adesanya to reimburse the country for 75 per cent of its legal costs, amounting to approximately $11.82 million.
The APC Campaign Council also questioned Atiku’s absence as a witness in the arbitration proceedings.
According to the council, the former vice-president should have personally addressed questions surrounding the $500,000 transaction, particularly after Adesanya linked the payment to a foreign-exchange transaction allegedly undertaken on Atiku’s behalf.
It contrasted his absence with the participation of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari in proceedings connected with Nigeria’s defence.
The ruling party’s campaign organisation also linked the controversy to the prolonged failure to deliver the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, arguing that residents of Taraba State and Nigerians generally lost potential economic benefits from a project envisioned to become one of the country’s biggest electricity-generating facilities.
On that basis, the APC said the controversy went beyond the disputed $500,000 payment and raised broader questions about public accountability, decision-making and the protection of Nigeria’s interests while Atiku served as vice-president.
The campaign council consequently called on Atiku to withdraw from the 2027 presidential contest, describing the issues emerging from the arbitration as incompatible, in its view, with the standards expected of a presidential candidate.
Atiku, however, has rejected claims that the ICC tribunal found him guilty of corruption.
His side maintains that the arbitration was a contractual dispute between Sunrise and the Federal Government and that the tribunal did not issue a corruption conviction against the former vice-president.
That distinction is significant: although the tribunal examined the $500,000 transaction and expressed concerns about the evidence offered to explain it, the arbitration ruling itself should not be characterised as a criminal conviction of Atiku.
The controversy is nevertheless expected to remain part of the political debate ahead of the 2027 election, particularly as the APC seeks to make integrity, accountability and the history of the Mambilla project campaign issues.
For the APC Campaign Council, its case against Atiku’s candidacy rests on several questions it says remain politically relevant: the unexplained documentation surrounding the $500,000 transfer, its timing in relation to the purported Mambilla contract, Atiku’s absence from the arbitration proceedings, the disputed circumstances surrounding the contract and the huge financial exposure Nigeria subsequently faced.
Whether those issues should affect Atiku’s candidacy will ultimately be for voters to assess as the 2027 presidential campaign develops.
