The presidency has challenged former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to explain an alleged $500,000 payment made to his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, during negotiations over the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in 2003.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the demand in a statement on Friday.

This followed details of the payment contained in the final award of a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris.

According to the tribunal’s award, Adesanya transferred the $500,000 on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company he controlled, into Douglas’ Citibank account in the United States.

The payment was made about two weeks after Sunrise submitted its tender for the Mambilla project and less than four months before the company was purportedly awarded a Build-Operate-Transfer contract by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku and was unrelated to the Mambilla project.

The tribunal rejected that explanation, saying Adesanya did not produce documentary evidence showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence relating to the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.

The tribunal also considered the timing of the transfer in relation to the purported award of the Mambilla contract and examined Atiku’s involvement in the project negotiations.

However, the tribunal did not find that Atiku personally received a bribe or directed the transfer. Atiku was not a party to the arbitration and neither he nor Douglas testified before the tribunal.

Despite this, Onanuga said Atiku should address the circumstances surrounding the payment.

“A politician who aspires to lead Nigeria must be willing to answer questions about his integrity.

“Atiku should respond to the $500,000 bribe directly rather than divert public attention with unsupported allegations against the government,” Onanuga said.

The development followed the ICC tribunal’s rejection of claims totalling about $3.38bn brought by Sunrise Power in disputes connected with the Mambilla project.

The claims included about $680m in settlement and interest and more than $2.7 billion in compensation and interest over the alleged non-development of the 3,960-megawatt project.

The tribunal ruled in Nigeria’s favour and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse the Federal Government for most of its legal costs.

The Mambilla controversy has also featured in Nigerian criminal proceedings involving Agunloye, who was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for alleged award of the 3,960MW Build-Operate-Transfer contract without the required presidential or Federal Executive Council approval.

A prosecution witness previously testified that Agunloye awarded the contract on May 22, 2003, a day after a Federal Executive Council meeting.

Atiku has previously denied any connection with corruption allegations surrounding the Mambilla project controversy.

The presidency has challenged former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to explain an alleged $500,000 payment made to his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, during negotiations over the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in 2003.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the demand in a statement on Friday.

This followed details of the payment contained in the final award of a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris.

According to the tribunal’s award, Adesanya transferred the $500,000 on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company he controlled, into Douglas’ Citibank account in the United States.

The payment was made about two weeks after Sunrise submitted its tender for the Mambilla project and less than four months before the company was purportedly awarded a Build-Operate-Transfer contract by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku and was unrelated to the Mambilla project.

The tribunal rejected that explanation, saying Adesanya did not produce documentary evidence showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence relating to the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.

The tribunal also considered the timing of the transfer in relation to the purported award of the Mambilla contract and examined Atiku’s involvement in the project negotiations.

However, the tribunal did not find that Atiku personally received a bribe or directed the transfer. Atiku was not a party to the arbitration and neither he nor Douglas testified before the tribunal.

Despite this, Onanuga said Atiku should address the circumstances surrounding the payment.

“A politician who aspires to lead Nigeria must be willing to answer questions about his integrity.

“Atiku should respond to the $500,000 bribe directly rather than divert public attention with unsupported allegations against the government,” Onanuga said.

The development followed the ICC tribunal’s rejection of claims totalling about $3.38bn brought by Sunrise Power in disputes connected with the Mambilla project.

The claims included about $680m in settlement and interest and more than $2.7 billion in compensation and interest over the alleged non-development of the 3,960-megawatt project.

The tribunal ruled in Nigeria’s favour and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse the Federal Government for most of its legal costs.

The Mambilla controversy has also featured in Nigerian criminal proceedings involving Agunloye, who was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for alleged award of the 3,960MW Build-Operate-Transfer contract without the required presidential or Federal Executive Council approval.

A prosecution witness previously testified that Agunloye awarded the contract on May 22, 2003, a day after a Federal Executive Council meeting.

Atiku has previously denied any connection with corruption allegations surrounding the Mambilla project controversy.

The presidency has challenged former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to explain an alleged $500,000 payment made to his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, during negotiations over the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in 2003.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the demand in a statement on Friday.

This followed details of the payment contained in the final award of a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris.

According to the tribunal’s award, Adesanya transferred the $500,000 on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company he controlled, into Douglas’ Citibank account in the United States.

The payment was made about two weeks after Sunrise submitted its tender for the Mambilla project and less than four months before the company was purportedly awarded a Build-Operate-Transfer contract by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku and was unrelated to the Mambilla project.

The tribunal rejected that explanation, saying Adesanya did not produce documentary evidence showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence relating to the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.

The tribunal also considered the timing of the transfer in relation to the purported award of the Mambilla contract and examined Atiku’s involvement in the project negotiations.

However, the tribunal did not find that Atiku personally received a bribe or directed the transfer. Atiku was not a party to the arbitration and neither he nor Douglas testified before the tribunal.

Despite this, Onanuga said Atiku should address the circumstances surrounding the payment.

“A politician who aspires to lead Nigeria must be willing to answer questions about his integrity.

“Atiku should respond to the $500,000 bribe directly rather than divert public attention with unsupported allegations against the government,” Onanuga said.

The development followed the ICC tribunal’s rejection of claims totalling about $3.38bn brought by Sunrise Power in disputes connected with the Mambilla project.

The claims included about $680m in settlement and interest and more than $2.7 billion in compensation and interest over the alleged non-development of the 3,960-megawatt project.

The tribunal ruled in Nigeria’s favour and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse the Federal Government for most of its legal costs.

The Mambilla controversy has also featured in Nigerian criminal proceedings involving Agunloye, who was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for alleged award of the 3,960MW Build-Operate-Transfer contract without the required presidential or Federal Executive Council approval.

A prosecution witness previously testified that Agunloye awarded the contract on May 22, 2003, a day after a Federal Executive Council meeting.

Atiku has previously denied any connection with corruption allegations surrounding the Mambilla project controversy.