Mambilla Bombshell: ICC Tribunal Questions Malami’s Role in $400m Settlement Deal
ICC finds former AGF maintained “inappropriate relationship” with Sunrise promoter, describes settlement dealings as tainted by corruption
By The Analyst Investigative Desk
ABUJA — A fresh international arbitration ruling has cast a harsh spotlight on the role played by former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, in the controversial settlement negotiations arising from Nigeria’s long-running dispute with Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal, in a decision concerning the dispute, made unusually strong findings about the circumstances surrounding settlement agreements negotiated while Malami was Attorney-General.
According to the tribunal’s findings, as reported by TheCable after reviewing the decision, Malami maintained what the tribunal described as an “inappropriate relationship” with Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise Power.
More significantly, the tribunal concluded that the circumstances surrounding the settlement arrangements involved what it characterised as a “corrupt deal.”
The findings raise fundamental questions about how an agreement capable of exposing Nigeria to hundreds of millions of dollars in financial liability was negotiated, who authorised it, and what information was presented to the highest levels of government before the proposed settlement was pursued.
The $400m Question
At the heart of the controversy was a 2020 settlement agreement under which Nigeria was expected to pay Sunrise Power $200 million.
A subsequent addendum reportedly introduced another $200 million liability under specified circumstances, potentially taking the financial exposure associated with the arrangement to $400 million.
The ICC tribunal was subsequently asked to determine, among other issues, whether the agreements were legally binding and whether Sunrise Power could enforce them against Nigeria.
Its findings went beyond the question of contractual liability.
The tribunal scrutinised the conduct surrounding the negotiations, including Malami’s dealings with Adesanya and the circumstances in which the settlement documents were prepared and pursued.
The tribunal ultimately rejected Sunrise Power’s claims arising from the disputed settlement arrangements.
What Did Buhari Know?
One of the most consequential aspects of the ruling concerns the involvement of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The tribunal examined evidence relating to whether Buhari had authorised the proposed settlement and found that the necessary presidential approval had not been obtained.
Evidence considered by the tribunal reportedly included Buhari’s handwritten response concerning the proposed payment, in which the former president indicated that the Federal Government did not have the $200 million required for the settlement.
The tribunal also examined the conduct of Malami after Buhari’s reservations.
Its findings raised questions about whether the former AGF adequately communicated the implications of the settlement to the former president and whether efforts were subsequently made to secure approval for an arrangement that had already generated serious concerns.
Malami did not appear before the tribunal to testify in the proceedings.
The Adesanya Connection
The tribunal’s treatment of the relationship between Malami and Adesanya represents perhaps the most politically sensitive aspect of the decision.
Rather than treating the negotiations as an ordinary commercial disagreement, the tribunal examined the personal and official interactions between the former AGF and the promoter of the company pursuing claims against Nigeria.
It found the relationship “inappropriate” and concluded that the settlement arrangements were affected by corruption.
The tribunal also considered allegations concerning an alleged solicitation of a bribe by Malami. Those allegations were made by Adesanya, who reportedly claimed to possess audio and video recordings relating to the alleged incident.
The recordings, however, were not made available to the tribunal.
The tribunal nevertheless reached its conclusions based on the totality of the evidence before it.
That distinction is important: the ICC ruling is an arbitration decision concerning the dispute and does not, by itself, amount to a criminal conviction of Malami.
Nigeria’s Multibillion-Dollar Exposure
The stakes in the Mambilla dispute were considerably larger than the disputed $400 million settlement.
Sunrise Power pursued claims running into billions of dollars in connection with the Mambilla project and related contractual disputes.
The ICC tribunal rejected the claims against Nigeria, delivering a major financial reprieve to the Federal Government and effectively preventing the disputed settlement obligations from becoming an additional liability for the Nigerian state.
The ruling also directed Sunrise Power and its promoter to bear a substantial proportion of Nigeria’s legal costs associated with the arbitration.
Beyond Mambilla: Questions for Government Accountability
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the immediate dispute between Nigeria and Sunrise Power.
It raises broader questions about the safeguards surrounding government contracts, settlement agreements and negotiations capable of committing public resources on a massive scale.
How was the $200 million settlement conceived?
Who negotiated it?
What due diligence was conducted?
Why was a further $200 million exposure introduced through an addendum?
What exactly was communicated to the Presidency?
And why did the matter eventually become the subject of an international arbitration involving claims worth billions of dollars?
Those questions remain central to understanding the Mambilla saga.
For Nigeria, the ICC ruling may have prevented a potentially enormous financial burden. But its findings concerning the conduct surrounding the settlement negotiations have opened another chapter—one centred not merely on the economics of the Mambilla project, but on public accountability, official discretion and the protection of the Nigerian state in high-value contractual negotiations.
The tribunal’s findings concerning Malami will therefore require careful examination by relevant Nigerian authorities, particularly in determining whether any aspect of the conduct identified in the arbitration warrants further domestic investigation.
The Analyst Online Media will continue to follow the Mambilla arbitration, the tribunal’s findings and the wider questions surrounding the management of Nigeria’s public contracts and international legal disputes.
THE ANALYST ONLINE MEDIA — STRESSING INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM