Former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, says the proposed $200 million settlement with Sunrise Power over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project was negotiated in Nigeria’s interest.
Malami was reacting to findings by an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal, which ruled that the 2020 settlement and its addendum were products of corruption and unenforceable.
The ICC tribunal, in its 616-page final award delivered in Paris on September 16, also found that Malami and Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power, reached a corrupt deal over the settlement, adding that Malami acted against Nigeria’s interest in handling the matter.
But in a statement issued on Tuesday by his Special Assistant on Media, Mohammed Bello Doka, Malami rejected any suggestion that he acted for personal financial gain.
“Malami rejects any suggestion that his official actions were undertaken pursuant to a corrupt agreement or in exchange for personal financial benefit,” the statement said.
The former AGF said the settlement was part of efforts to resolve a long-running dispute that had exposed Nigeria to multibillion-dollar claims and threatened financing discussions for the Mambilla project.
Malami said, “The governmental calculation was whether an asserted multibillion-dollar exposure, continuing litigation, financing difficulties and delays to the Mambilla project could be brought to an end through a substantially smaller negotiated settlement.
“Whether every term ultimately negotiated advanced that objective is a separate question and must be examined on its own evidence.”
In January 2020, Malami and then Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, signed a settlement under which Nigeria would pay Sunrise $200 million.
An addendum signed in March split the payment into two $100 million instalments and exposed Nigeria to a further $200 million default payment, apart from interest.
The tribunal said Sunrise had relied on the agreements in seeking up to $400 million from Nigeria.
Adesanya had told the tribunal that Malami and Mamman demanded 50 per cent of the settlement as bribes. He alleged that Nigeria would pay the first $100 million and release the second after he had done “what is needed”.
The tribunal found that Malami and Adesanya had reached a corrupt arrangement, although it could not establish the precise amount allegedly promised to Malami.
Malami, however, said there was no evidence linking him to any financial benefit from Sunrise or Adesanya.
“One obvious factual question is whether any money or other financial benefit from Sunrise, Adesanya or any connected entity was ever received by Malami pursuant to the alleged arrangement,” he said.
The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria, ruling that the settlement and addendum were not binding because they lacked the required presidential approval. It also held that the agreements were unenforceable because they were tainted by corruption and contrary to Nigerian public policy.
No settlement payment was made after former President Muhammadu Buhari refused to approve it.
Malami said he subsequently directed government lawyers to resist Sunrise’s attempt to enforce the settlement and to protect Nigeria’s legal position.
He also rejected the suggestion that he originated the dispute, noting that the controversy dated back to 2003, years before he became AGF.
Malami said a detailed response to the tribunal’s findings would be issued after he reviewed the complete award and underlying records.
The statement also cautioned against presenting the tribunal’s findings as a criminal conviction.
“The proceedings were commercial arbitration proceedings between parties to a dispute. They were not a criminal prosecution of Abubakar Malami, SAN, and the award does not constitute a criminal conviction of him,” it said.
It added that Malami “was neither a party to the proceedings, nor accorded any opportunity of stating his own side of the story”.
The tribunal, in its judgment, ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria $11.82 million in legal fees and $414,125 in arbitration costs. They are also to bear their own legal expenses.
