Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) Campaign Council of distorting the outcome of the Mambilla arbitration by presenting allegations examined by the tribunal as a corruption verdict against him.

Atiku, in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the APC to produce the portion of the tribunal’s final award where it found that he received a $500,000 bribe, influenced the award of the Mambilla power project to Sunrise Power, abused his office or participated in a corrupt conspiracy.

He said the tribunal’s consideration of a $500,000 transfer involving Leno Adesanya did not amount to a finding that he received a bribe or corruptly influenced the contract.

According to him, the tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation that the money, transferred through China Castle Investments to Jennifer Douglas, arose from a foreign-exchange transaction, citing the absence of documentary evidence supporting the explanation.

“But rejecting Adesanya’s explanation, Atiku said, is fundamentally different from finding that Atiku received a bribe or corruptly used his office to secure the Sunrise contract,” the statement said.
Atiku said Nigeria had alleged before the tribunal that the 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.

He also rejected claims that he “chose to stay away” after being summoned by the tribunal, saying he was not a party to the arbitration and did not testify before it.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal,” he said.

Atiku argued that the reported contents of the award did not establish that the tribunal summoned him, ordered him to testify or found that he disobeyed any directive to appear.

He said a distinction should be made between a party to an arbitration seeking an individual’s testimony and the tribunal itself summoning that person.

Atiku noted that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari testified on behalf of Nigeria, while former ministers Babatunde Fashola and Suleiman Adamu also participated in Nigeria’s defence.

He said their participation could not be construed as evidence that he had been summoned by the tribunal and refused to appear.

According to Atiku, the arbitration involved Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, Leno Adesanya and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and did not impose damages, costs or other liability on him.

He said the tribunal dismissed Sunrise’s claims and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal fees and expenses.

Atiku also contrasted the Mambilla arbitration with the 1993 United States civil-forfeiture case involving property held in President Bola Tinubu’s name.

He said a distinction must be maintained between a civil forfeiture proceeding against property and a criminal conviction of an individual.

Atiku 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.

He said the order did not amount to a criminal conviction of Tinubu personally for drug trafficking, but argued that it demonstrated the difference between an allegation and a formal judicial order.

“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 said.

He challenged the APC to identify the paragraphs in the Mambilla 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 award supporting its allegations and allow Nigerians to examine the tribunal’s words for themselves.

He also accused the ruling party of using the controversy to distract Nigerians from issues ahead of the 2027 election, including the cost of living, jobs, security and the impact of the Tinubu administration’s economic policies.

“Nigerians can read. Nigerians can distinguish allegation from adjudication. And Nigerians should not be asked to surrender their judgment to campaign propaganda,” he said.

Atiku maintained that the APC should not present campaign allegations as findings of an international tribunal.

“An allegation is not a finding. Suspicion is not proof. The rejection of one man’s explanation is not the conviction of another man.

“And no amount of political repetition can write into an arbitral award a verdict that the tribunal itself did not deliver.”