20/09/2026
Leno Adesanya, founder of Sunrise Power and Transmission
Company Limited, moved millions of dollars and naira through companies,
intermediaries and relatives of influential Nigerian officials as he pursued
control of the Mambilla hydropower project, according to a final arbitral award
that sharply criticised his conduct.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal, in its
final award dated September 16, 2026, examined payments linked to Atiku
Abubakar, a former vice-president; Olu Agunloye, a former minister of power and
steel; Abdullahi Yola, a former solicitor-general of the federation; Dere
Awosika, a former permanent secretary in the ministry of power; and Sambo
Dasuki, a former national security adviser.
The money did not always pass directly to the officials. In
several instances, it went to their wives, children, assistants or associated
companies. Adesanya used entities including China Castle Investments Limited,
Lutin Investments Limited and Sunrise itself. Other payments were routed
through his personal assistant.
Adesanya described the transactions variously as a
foreign-exchange deal, medical assistance, a friendly loan, support for house
renovations and an investment in a restaurant. He said another
multimillion-dollar transfer was meant to finance a quarry business connected
to the Mambilla project.
The tribunal rejected some of those explanations outright
and found material inconsistencies in others.
It was nevertheless careful in its conclusions. For some
transactions, the arbitrators found “significant” or “serious red flags” but
said the evidence did not prove that the public official performed a particular
act in exchange for the money.
The clearest finding of corruption concerned a different
transaction: an alleged promise by Adesanya to pay then attorney-general
Abubakar Malami a portion of a proposed $200 million settlement. The tribunal
found that Adesanya and Malami reached a corrupt deal, although no settlement
money was eventually paid.
Taken together, the transactions revealed what the tribunal
described as Adesanya’s practice of engaging influential officials “including
through financial incentives”.
In its decision on costs, the tribunal went further,
describing Adesanya as personally responsible for a “decades-long campaign of
bribery and corruption” involving payments — some of them very large — to
officials connected to Mambilla or thought capable of influencing decisions on
the project.
$500,000 TRANSFERRED TO ATIKU’S WIFE
One of the earliest payments identified by the tribunal was
a $500,000 transfer to Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, who was then married to
Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
On January 30, 2003, China Castle Investments Limited, an
offshore company controlled by Adesanya, transferred the money from its Swiss
bank account to Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States.
The timing attracted the tribunal’s attention.
By then, Adesanya had been lobbying the Nigerian government
over Mambilla and dealing extensively with Atiku. In July 2002, Atiku had led a
Nigerian delegation to China on a visit that resulted in a memorandum of
understanding covering the proposed hydropower project.
Less than four months after the $500,000 transfer, Agunloye
issued the May 22, 2003 letter on which Sunrise subsequently based its claim
that it had been awarded the Mambilla build-operate-transfer contract.
Adesanya admitted making the payment but said it was an
ordinary foreign-exchange transaction conducted for Atiku. He claimed that a
company called Moneyline Ventures Limited held a bureau-de-change licence
through which he conducted such transactions.
The tribunal found multiple problems with that explanation.
No contemporaneous document was produced to show that the
transaction was a currency exchange. Neither Atiku nor Douglas provided a
witness statement. Adesanya produced no communication with Atiku, Douglas or
their representatives confirming the purported naira-for-dollar arrangement.
Adesanya also failed to produce the bureau-de-change licence
he said Moneyline held, despite undertaking during the hearing to look for it.
More damagingly, Moneyline was not the company that sent the
money. China Castle was the transferor, and Adesanya admitted that China Castle
neither held a foreign-exchange licence nor had currency trading among its
corporate purposes.
His explanations for the absence of testimony from Douglas
also shifted. In a witness statement, Adesanya said he remained her friend.
Under cross-examination, he said she would not take his calls because he had
sided against her during her divorce from Atiku.
The tribunal said it was unable to accept the
foreign-exchange explanation.
It found that the payment, its timing and Atiku’s role in
the Mambilla process created significant red flags. However, it said there was
no evidence that Atiku actually exercised his governmental powers to secure the
contract for Sunrise.
Consequently, the tribunal did not make a definitive finding
that the $500,000 was a bribe. It said, however, that it could not exclude the
possibility that the payment was connected to Atiku’s leading governmental role
in relation to Mambilla.
N5.2 MILLION TO AGUNLOYE WHILE SUNRISE NEEDED HIS
EVIDENCE
Sixteen years after Agunloye issued the controversial May
2003 award letter, Adesanya arranged three payments to the former minister.
The payments were made through Jide Sotinrin, Adesanya’s
assistant:
N3.6 million on August 10, 2019;
N500,000 on October 22, 2019; and
N1.121 million on November 13, 2019.
They totalled approximately N5.2 million, then worth about
$15,000.
The timing was again crucial. Nigeria had, in July 2019,
formally challenged the validity of the supposed 2003 award during an earlier
arbitration. Agunloye was potentially Sunrise’s most important witness because
he was the official who signed the letter on which its claim depended.
Adesanya said the money was humanitarian assistance for
Agunloye’s medical treatment. He said members of his community contributed the
funds and that Sotinrin handled the transfers because his Nigerian bank
accounts had been frozen.
The tribunal found substantial doubt surrounding that
account.
It said Adesanya gave inconsistent evidence about the
medical documents he had received, who gave them to him and why the records
were not produced to substantiate his explanation. No sufficient evidence was
presented to establish that the three payments actually covered Agunloye’s
treatment.
There was also no contemporaneous evidence that members of
Adesanya’s community contributed the money. Nor did Adesanya substantiate his
claim that his Nigerian accounts were frozen.
The tribunal questioned why Sotinrin had to serve as an
intermediary when Adesanya acknowledged that he could make transfers from bank
accounts in Senegal to Nigerian accounts.
It added that even if Agunloye genuinely needed medical
treatment, that would not automatically remove the possibility of bribery. The
character of a payment, it said, depends on the circumstances in which it is
given, not simply on how the recipient eventually spends it.
Nevertheless, the tribunal stopped short of connecting the
2019 payments conclusively to Agunloye’s 2003 letter. It noted the 16-year
interval, the absence of evidence of other payments during the intervening
period and the fact that the earlier arbitration was settled before witness
testimony was taken.
It therefore found significant red flags, including the
possibility that the payments were connected to Agunloye’s potential evidence
in the arbitration, but did not make a definitive finding that they were
payment for the 2003 award.
N10 MILLION TO YOLA THROUGH A MINISTRY CLERK
The tribunal was particularly critical of Adesanya’s
explanations for a N10 million payment to Abdullahi Yola, who had served as
solicitor-general of the federation.
Yola represented the ministry of justice during the process
that produced the 2012 general project ex*****on agreement (GPEA) and the
related terms of settlement. He signed both documents on behalf of the
attorney-general.
On November 23, 2015 — only 13 days after Yola retired —
Lutin Investments Limited, one of Adesanya’s companies, transferred N10 million
to Vincent Awaji.
Awaji had been a clerk in the ministry of justice and Yola’s
assistant. The money was intended for Yola’s benefit.
The award said Yola subsequently instructed Awaji to
transfer the funds to several recipients, including Seabright Capital Limited,
a company Nigeria said was controlled by Yola’s son, Buhari Abdullahi Yola;
Binta Magaji Karaye; and Buhari Yola himself.
Adesanya initially described the payment as a loan to help
Yola complete renovations to his house and establish a law practice. He said
Yola could repay him through legal services and initially claimed those
services had eventually been provided.
Yola contradicted that account. He told the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that he neither requested nor received a
loan and had never provided legal services to Adesanya.
Adesanya subsequently called his earlier account an error.
During cross-examination, however, he again suggested that Yola had started
providing services, only to reverse himself after being confronted with his
corrected witness statement.
The explanations concerning the house also conflicted.
Adesanya said Yola’s home was under renovation and that the money was intended
to complete the work. Yola said he used it for general upkeep and pressing
personal needs and had never intended to operate his law practice from his
home.
Their accounts also differed on why the money was routed
through Awaji. Adesanya said he wanted to pay a contractor directly and Yola
supplied Awaji’s details. Yola said using a third-party account was Adesanya’s
suggestion.
The tribunal said it was not persuaded that Adesanya’s
justification was truthful. It found his repeated changes of position
“troubling”.
It also noted that the N10 million exceeded Yola’s annual
salary before retirement, was routed through an intermediary and followed his
participation in an agreement that conferred a major benefit on Sunrise.
The tribunal found clear indications of the official act
potentially connected to the payment: Yola’s legal advice in favour of
settlement and his direct role in executing the GPEA and accompanying terms.
It described the transaction as raising red flags over the
payment, the connection to Yola’s conduct and the official actions that
benefited Sunrise — red flags that were not neutralised by any other evidence.
N25 MILLION ‘RESTAURANT INVESTMENT’ IN PERMANENT
SECRETARY’S SON
Between May 2015 and January 2016, Lutin Investments
transferred N25.01 million, approximately $135,000 at the time, to Tola Awosika
and his company, 355 Integrated Services Limited.
Tola is the son of Dere Awosika, who was permanent secretary
in the ministry of power during the negotiation and ex*****on of the 2012 GPEA.
The transfers were:
N13 million to 355 Integrated Services on May 20, 2015;
N12 million to the company on June 19, 2015; and
N10,000 to Tola Awosika on January 22, 2016.
Adesanya said the money was an investment in Tola’s
restaurant business, made for the benefit of his daughters. He said his
daughters were friends with Tola and that he wanted them to learn how to
conduct business.
There was some documentary support for an investment.
Adesanya’s daughters were allotted shares in a related hospitality company in
2016 and received dividends between 2016 and 2023.
But Adesanya’s account of how he met Tola repeatedly
changed. He initially said he met him through two of his daughters, who
attended the same school as Tola. He later said he met Tola in his mother’s
office. He also admitted that Tola and his daughters had not attended the same
school but were merely in the same social circle in England.
The tribunal also questioned why the investment was placed
in his daughters’ names when Adesanya supplied the money, responded to later
cash calls and received at least some dividend payments himself.
It found that Awosika was involved in the GPEA process and
had substantive contacts with Adesanya, contrary to the argument that their
interactions were purely social.
The tribunal concluded that the absence of a credible
explanation for the investment, the amount involved and the official position
of Tola’s mother raised serious red flags.
But it did not find sufficient evidence that Awosika took a
specific action in exchange for the investment. The shareholding and dividend
records also provided some evidence that an actual business investment existed.
The tribunal therefore treated the transaction as suspicious
without conclusively declaring it a bribe.
$1.74 MILLION TO DASUKI’S SON — SPENT ON FEES, AIRCRAFT
AND AN UNEXPLAINED TRANSFER
On December 16, 2014, Sunrise transferred approximately
$1.74 million to Abubakar Dasuki, a son of then national security adviser Sambo
Dasuki.
Adesanya described the money as a loan intended to allow
Abubakar Dasuki to participate in a quarry operation that would service the
Mambilla project.
The tribunal found no “credible and uniform explanation” for
the transfer.
Adesanya initially said a written loan agreement existed and
suggested that the EFCC might have taken it during a search. When ordered to
produce the document, he could not do so. Under cross-examination, he
eventually conceded that an agreement was probably never signed.
Sambo Dasuki’s son also received payments from Adesanya
The purported loan was also absent from Sunrise’s statements
of affairs for 2014 and 2015.
Abubakar Dasuki gave a different account of its purpose. He
said he needed money for personal matters as well as for a proposed quarry.
Bank records showed expenditure on school fees and aircraft charters, while
$850,000 was transferred to the Bob Oshodin Organisation. No evidence
established that any substantial portion was used to acquire equipment or
resources for the proposed quarry business.
The transaction formed part of a wider arrangement.
In October 2013, Adesanya incorporated Hydropower
Investments Limited in the British Virgin Islands. Its shareholders were three
of Sambo Dasuki’s children: Abubakar, Hassan and Asma Dasuki. Adesanya and
Abubakar were its directors.
The company’s incorporation documents stated that it would
own 10 million shares in Sunrise. Adesanya said the proposed transfer was
conditional on Abubakar becoming involved in Mambilla and never took effect.
The tribunal could not determine whether the shares were
ever transferred. It nevertheless described Adesanya’s creation of an offshore
company for the national security adviser’s children, with a contemplated
holding of 10 million Sunrise shares, as a “serious red flag”.
It found no concrete evidence that Sambo Dasuki intervened
in the 2012 GPEA process or used his office to assist Sunrise. But because the
loan explanation was unconvincing, the tribunal said it could not exclude the
possibility that the $1.74 million was paid in exchange for the exercise of the
national security adviser’s influence.
THE MALAMI DEAL: A PROMISED SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT
The tribunal’s most direct corruption finding concerned
former attorney-general Abubakar Malami.
In January 2020, Malami and then power minister Saleh Mamman
signed a settlement under which Nigeria would pay Sunrise $200 million. An
addendum signed in March 2020 divided the sum into two $100 million instalments
and exposed Nigeria to an additional $200 million default payment, apart from
interest.
Adesanya testified that Malami and Mamman demanded that he
pay 50 percent of the settlement as bribes. He said they told him Nigeria would
pay the first half and release the second after he had done “what is needed”.
Adesanya insisted that he rejected the demand. He also
claimed to possess audio and video recordings of the conversations.
But despite an order from the tribunal, he refused to
produce the recordings, citing concerns for his safety and that of his family.
He stated that he would not disclose them even if they were later found.
Malami was accused of demanding a cut from the settlement
payment
The tribunal drew the opposite inference from the one
Adesanya wanted.
It found it implausible that he would withhold recordings
that cleared him of wrongdoing. It also observed that the payment structure
subsequently inserted into the addendum mirrored Adesanya’s own description of
the alleged bribe demand: Nigeria would first pay $100 million, after which the
remaining $100 million would be released.
The tribunal concluded that a corrupt deal was reached
between Adesanya and Malami.
It identified the promised benefit as a share of the
settlement money payable to Sunrise. Although the precise agreed amount could
not be confirmed, Adesanya’s own evidence suggested a demand of as much as $100
million — half of the original settlement.
In return, the tribunal found, Malami cooperated in
committing Nigeria to the addendum, signed terms that could expose the country
to a $400 million liability and coordinated procedural steps with Adesanya.
The tribunal found that the settlement agreement and
addendum were products of corruption and therefore unenforceable. It did not
make a corresponding finding against Mamman because the withheld recordings
were the only potential direct evidence of his role.
No settlement money was ultimately paid because then
President Muhammadu Buhari refused to approve the arrangement. The tribunal
said that did not remove the corrupt character of the promise: an offered or
promised benefit can constitute the relevant improper advantage even if payment
is never completed.
ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING ADEYANJU, OGAR AND YUSUF NOT PROVED
The tribunal rejected corruption allegations involving three
other officials, underscoring the distinction between suspicious circumstances
and proved bribery.
Zacchaeus Adeyanju, a justice ministry official who helped
prepare the 2020 settlement, received about $107,113 through 67 deposits and
foreign-exchange transactions between June 2019 and June 2020. But the tribunal
found no evidence that any of that money came from Adesanya or Sunrise.
It also found no evidence connecting Adesanya to
approximately $3,700 that Adeyanju transferred to another ministry lawyer, Oben
Ogar. The corruption allegation relating to Ogar was dismissed for lack of
evidence.
Tanko Yusuf, an aide to power minister Mamman, had his
flights and Dubai accommodation paid by Adesanya while carrying the signed
settlement to him. Adesanya also gave Yusuf a sum in pounds sterling in London,
estimated by Nigeria at £5,000.
Adesanya said the cash was a currency exchange: Yusuf was to
give the naira equivalent to Sotinrin. A transfer of N3.325 million was
eventually made to Sotinrin, although it occurred about 20 months later.
The tribunal found the travel arrangement curious but held
that the flights and accommodation were professional expenses, not a personal
benefit. It also found insufficient evidence of the amount of cash Yusuf
received or of any substantive influence he exercised over the settlement.
It therefore found no basis for Nigeria’s allegation that
Yusuf had been compensated for influencing the agreement in Sunrise’s favour.
A PATTERN THE TRIBUNAL SAID COULD NO LONGER BE IGNORED
The award did not reduce every questioned payment to a
proven quid pro quo. For Atiku, Agunloye, Awosika and Sambo Dasuki, the
tribunal expressly identified evidential gaps concerning the official action
supposedly purchased.
What it found unmistakable was the pattern.
Adesanya paid or extended benefits to five senior officials
or their family members at critical stages of the Mambilla dispute. The
explanations repeatedly involved undocumented loans, indirect transfers,
offshore companies, friendly assistance or investments with people connected to
the decision-making process.
That history, the tribunal said, made it more likely that
Adesanya also offered Malami an improper benefit in connection with the 2020
settlement.
The arbitrators rejected Sunrise’s $400 million claim
against Nigeria and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse the government
$11.82 million in legal expenses and $414,125 in arbitration costs.
Nigeria’s separate damages counterclaim was dismissed
because it failed to establish the required causal connection between the
corruption and the losses it claimed.
But on Adesanya’s conduct, the tribunal’s final assessment
was unrestrained: the Sunrise founder had repeatedly used payments and
financial incentives while pursuing a project that never produced electricity
for Nigeria, but generated more than two decades of disputes, settlements and
arbitration.
from Latest News In Nigeria, Nigeria News Today, Your Online Nigerian Newspaper https://ift.tt/InCpEHl
via gqrds
Latest Nigerian News - Nigerian newspaper, Nigerian News, Read Nigerian news online, Visit Google9ja.com
