By GGabriel Ameh
The Independent Media and Policy Initiative (IMPI) has called for further investigation and possible proceedings against former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over a $500,000 payment made to his then-wife, Jennifer Douglas, during his time in office.
The call followed details contained in the final award of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris concerning the long-running dispute over Nigeria’s Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
According to IMPI, its review of the 616-page arbitral award showed that $500,000 was transferred on January 30, 2003, from China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya, to a United States bank account belonging to Douglas.
The payment was made months before Sunrise Power was purportedly awarded a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract relating to the Mambilla project. The transaction was also examined by the ICC tribunal during the arbitration proceedings.
IMPI, in a policy statement signed by its Chairman, Dr Omoniyi Akinsiju, argued that the circumstances surrounding the transaction warranted examination by relevant Nigerian authorities, including the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
The group cited provisions of Nigeria’s Code of Conduct framework concerning foreign bank accounts maintained by public officers and urged authorities to determine whether any breach occurred.
The ICC tribunal, however, did not make a finding that Atiku received a bribe or that he used his official position to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise Power.
In its assessment of the transaction, the tribunal said Adesanya’s explanation that the $500,000 represented a legitimate foreign-exchange transaction was not supported by documentary or independent witness evidence. It described the circumstances surrounding the payment as raising “significant red flags.”
The tribunal also noted that it could not exclude a possible connection between the payment and Atiku’s role in the Nigerian government at the time, but specifically observed that there was no evidence before it showing that Atiku had exercised his official duties in a manner that facilitated Sunrise Power’s award of the contract.
The payment was made from an account linked to Adesanya’s offshore company to Douglas’s US bank account. Adesanya told the tribunal that the transaction was undertaken as a foreign-exchange arrangement for Atiku, but the tribunal said supporting documentation for that explanation was not provided.
IMPI nevertheless argued that the transaction raises questions about transparency and conflicts of interest in the handling of major government infrastructure projects.
The policy group also pointed to evidence examined during the arbitration concerning Adesanya’s relationship with senior Nigerian government officials and his efforts to secure the Mambilla project.
It argued that the circumstances surrounding the payment should be subjected to further scrutiny to determine whether any Nigerian law or public-service rules were breached.
IMPI further called for stronger institutional safeguards around the negotiation and award of major infrastructure concessions, particularly where private contractors have financial dealings with individuals connected to public officials.
The group said the government should strengthen mechanisms for monitoring financial transactions involving contractors, public officials and their associates in major public projects.
Meanwhile, Atiku has rejected claims that the ICC arbitration amounted to a corruption verdict against him. His spokesperson argued that the tribunal did not indict or convict the former Vice-President and challenged critics to identify where the award found that he received a bribe or directed the Mambilla contract to Sunrise Power.
The ICC arbitration itself ended with the tribunal rejecting Sunrise Power’s claims against Nigeria. The tribunal also ordered Sunrise Power and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses.
