Laitan Adesanya
By Toyin Williams
The long-running legal battle over Nigeria’s controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has taken a dramatic turn, with an international arbitration tribunal exposing a complex web of financial transactions involving Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya, relatives of senior government officials and individuals connected to the project’s decision-making process.
In its final award dated September 16, 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal rejected Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited’s $400 million claim against Nigeria, while finding that a corrupt agreement had been reached between Adesanya and former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, over a proposed $200 million settlement.
The tribunal also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse the Nigerian government $11.82 million in legal expenses and $414,125 in arbitration costs.
At the centre of the tribunal’s findings was a series of payments involving influential Nigerians, their relatives and associates. Among the transactions examined were a $500,000 transfer to the former wife of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, approximately N5.2 million paid to former Power Minister Olu Agunloye, N10 million routed to former Solicitor-General of the Federation Abdullahi Yola, N25 million transferred to the son of a former permanent secretary and $1.74 million paid to the son of former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki.
The tribunal did not, however, classify every transaction as a proven bribe. In several instances, it identified serious concerns and significant red flags but concluded that the available evidence did not establish that a particular public official had performed a specific act in exchange for the money.
In its assessment of costs, the tribunal described Adesanya as personally responsible for a “decades-long campaign of bribery and corruption” involving payments to officials connected to the Mambilla project or considered capable of influencing decisions concerning it.
$500,000 TO ATIKU’S THEN WIFE
One of the earliest transactions examined was a $500,000 payment made to Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, who was married to then Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
On January 30, 2003, China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, transferred the money from a Swiss bank account to Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States.
The payment came at a significant moment in the Mambilla project’s history.
In July 2002, Atiku had led a Nigerian delegation to China, where discussions culminated in a memorandum of understanding concerning the proposed hydropower project.
Four months after the payment, on May 22, 2003, Agunloye issued the letter that Sunrise subsequently relied upon as evidence that it had been awarded the Mambilla build-operate-transfer contract.
Adesanya acknowledged the payment but claimed it was part of a legitimate foreign-exchange transaction conducted on Atiku’s behalf through Moneyline Ventures Limited, which he said possessed a bureau-de-change licence.
The tribunal found serious flaws in that explanation.
No contemporaneous documents established that the transaction was a currency exchange. Adesanya failed to produce the alleged bureau-de-change licence, while China Castle, the company that actually transferred the money, neither possessed a foreign-exchange licence nor listed currency trading among its corporate purposes.
The tribunal also noted inconsistencies in Adesanya’s explanations concerning his relationship with Douglas and the reasons she was not called to testify.
Ultimately, the arbitrators rejected the foreign-exchange explanation and found that the timing of the payment, Atiku’s role in the Mambilla process and the surrounding circumstances raised significant red flags.
However, the tribunal said there was no evidence that Atiku had actually used his governmental powers to secure the contract for Sunrise.
It therefore stopped short of declaring the $500,000 a bribe, although it said it could not exclude the possibility that the payment was connected to Atiku’s role in the project.
N5.2 MILLION TO AGUNLOYE AS SUNRISE NEEDED HIS TESTIMONY
Sixteen years after Agunloye signed the controversial 2003 award letter, Adesanya arranged three payments to the former minister through his assistant, Jide Sotinrin.
The payments were: N3.6 million on August 10, 2019. N500,000 on October 22, 2019. N1.121 million on November 13, 2019. The total amounted to approximately N5.2 million, equivalent to about $15,000 at the time. The timing was crucial.
In July 2019, Nigeria had formally challenged the validity of the purported 2003 award during an earlier arbitration proceeding. Agunloye, who signed the letter on which Sunrise based its claim, was potentially the company’s most important witness.
Adesanya described the payments as humanitarian assistance for Agunloye’s medical treatment. He claimed that members of his community had contributed the money and that Sotinrin handled the transfers because his Nigerian bank accounts had been frozen.
The tribunal found substantial inconsistencies in that account.
Adesanya gave conflicting evidence about the medical documents he had allegedly received, who supplied them and why they were not produced to support his explanation.
There was also no convincing evidence that members of his community had contributed the money or that his Nigerian accounts were frozen.
The arbitrators questioned why Sotinrin had to act as an intermediary when Adesanya acknowledged that he could transfer money from bank accounts in Senegal to Nigerian accounts.
The tribunal further observed that even if Agunloye genuinely needed medical treatment, that fact alone would not rule out the possibility of bribery. The nature of a payment, it said, must be assessed in the context in which it was made.
Nevertheless, the tribunal acknowledged the 16-year gap between the payments and the 2003 award letter. It also noted the absence of evidence of other payments during the intervening years and the fact that the earlier arbitration had been settled before witness testimony was taken.
It identified significant red flags but did not conclusively determine that the payments were intended to influence Agunloye’s evidence or were connected to the 2003 award.
Agunloye is currently facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
N10 MILLION TO YOLA THROUGH A MINISTRY CLERK
The tribunal was particularly critical of Adesanya’s explanations for a N10 million payment intended for Abdullahi Yola, a former solicitor-general of the federation who represented the Ministry of Justice during the negotiations that produced the 2012 General Project Execution Agreement and related terms of settlement.
Yola signed both documents on behalf of the attorney-general.
On November 23, 2015, just 13 days after Yola’s retirement, Lutin Investments Limited, another company linked to Adesanya, transferred N10 million to Vincent Awaji, a former clerk in the Ministry of Justice who had worked as Yola’s assistant. The money was intended for Yola’s benefit. According to the award, Yola subsequently instructed Awaji to distribute the funds to several recipients, including Seabright Capital Limited, a company Nigeria alleged was controlled by Yola’s son, Buhari Abdullahi Yola, as well as Binta Magaji Karaye and Buhari Yola himself. Adesanya initially described the payment as a loan to help Yola renovate his house and establish a law practice. He also claimed that Yola could repay the money through legal services. Yola, however, gave the EFCC a different account. He denied requesting or receiving a loan from Adesanya and said he had never provided legal services to him.
Adesanya subsequently described his earlier account as an error, but his testimony continued to shift under cross-examination.
The two men also disagreed over the purpose of the money and why it was routed through Awaji’s account.
The tribunal concluded that Adesanya’s explanation was not truthful and described his repeated changes of position as “troubling”.
It further noted that the N10 million exceeded Yola’s annual salary before retirement and that the money was routed through an intermediary shortly after his involvement in agreements that conferred significant benefits on Sunrise.
Unlike the payments involving some of the other officials, the tribunal identified a potential connection between Yola’s official conduct and the payment.
It noted Yola’s role in providing legal advice in favour of a settlement and his direct involvement in executing the 2012 agreement and related terms.
The arbitrators concluded that the transaction raised serious questions about the payment, Yola’s conduct and the official actions that benefited Sunrise.
N25 MILLION ‘RESTAURANT INVESTMENT’ INVOLVING PERMANENT SECRETARY’S SON
Between May 2015 and January 2016, Lutin Investments transferred approximately N25.01 million, then worth about $135,000, to Tola Awosika and his company, 355 Integrated Services Limited.
Tola is the son of Dere Awosika, who served as permanent secretary in the Ministry of Power during the negotiation and execution of the 2012 General Project Execution Agreement.
The payments comprised:
N13 million to 355 Integrated Services on May 20, 2015.
N12 million to the company on June 19, 2015. N10,000 to Tola Awosika on January 22, 2016. Adesanya described the money as an investment in Tola’s restaurant business, allegedly made for the benefit of his daughters. He said his daughters were friends with Tola and that he wanted them to gain experience in business.
There were some documentary evidences supporting the existence of an investment. Adesanya’s daughters were allotted shares in a related hospitality company in 2016 and received dividends between 2016 and 2023.
However, the tribunal questioned Adesanya’s changing accounts of how he met Tola. He initially said they met through his daughters, who attended the same school as Tola. He later claimed that he met him in his mother’s office before admitting that Tola and his daughters had not attended the same school but merely belonged to the same social circle in England.
The tribunal also questioned why the investment was made in his daughters’ names when Adesanya provided the funds, responded to subsequent cash calls and received at least some dividend payments himself.
It found that Tola had substantive contacts with Adesanya and was connected to the process surrounding the 2012 agreement, contrary to the argument that their relationship was purely social.
The arbitrators concluded that the size of the investment, the absence of a credible explanation and the official position held by Tola’s mother raised serious red flags.
However, they acknowledged that the shareholding and dividend records provided some evidence of a genuine business investment.
The tribunal therefore treated the transaction as suspicious but did not conclusively establish that it was a bribe or that Dere Awosika had taken a specific action in exchange for it.
$1.74 MILLION TO DASUKI’S SON: SCHOOL FEES, AIRCRAFT CHARTERS AND AN UNEXPLAINED TRANSFER
On December 16, 2014, Sunrise transferred approximately $1.74 million to Abubakar Dasuki, the son of then National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki. Adesanya described the payment as a loan intended to finance Abubakar Dasuki’s participation in a quarry business that would supply materials for the Mambilla project.
But the tribunal found no “credible and uniform explanation” for the transaction.
Adesanya initially claimed that a written loan agreement existed and suggested that the EFCC might have taken it during a search.
When ordered to produce the document, he failed to do so.
Under cross-examination, he eventually conceded that an agreement had probably never been signed. The purported loan was also absent from Sunrise’s statements of affairs for 2014 and 2015.
Abubakar Dasuki provided a different account of the money’s purpose, saying he needed funds for personal matters as well as a proposed quarry operation.
Bank records showed that some of the money was spent on school fees and aircraft charters. A further $850,000 was transferred to the Bob Oshodin Organisation.
The tribunal found no evidence that a substantial portion of the money was used to purchase equipment or resources for the proposed quarry business.
The transaction was also linked to a broader offshore arrangement.
In October 2013, Adesanya incorporated Hydropower Investments Limited in the British Virgin Islands. The company’s shareholders were three of Sambo Dasuki’s children—Abubakar, Hassan and Asma Dasuki—while Adesanya and Abubakar served as directors.
The incorporation documents stated that the company would own 10 million shares in Sunrise.
Adesanya claimed that the proposed share transfer was conditional on Abubakar becoming involved in the Mambilla project and that it never took effect. The tribunal could not establish whether the shares were ever transferred. However, it described the creation of an offshore company for the national security adviser’s children, with a proposed holding of 10 million Sunrise shares, as a “serious red flag”.
The arbitrators found no concrete evidence that Sambo Dasuki had intervened in the 2012 agreement or used his office to assist Sunrise.
Nevertheless, because the loan explanation was unconvincing, they said they could not exclude the possibility that the $1.74 million was connected to an attempt to secure the national security adviser’s influence.
THE MALAMI DEAL: A PROMISED SHARE OF THE $200 MILLION SETTLEMENT
The tribunal’s most direct finding of corruption concerned former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami.
In January 2020, Malami and then Minister of Power Saleh Mamman signed a settlement agreement under which Nigeria was to pay Sunrise $200 million.
An addendum signed in March 2020 divided the payment into two $100 million instalments and exposed Nigeria to an additional $200 million default payment, apart from interest.
During the arbitration, Adesanya testified that Malami and Mamman had demanded 50 percent of the settlement as bribes.
He claimed that they told him Nigeria would pay the first half of the settlement and release the second half 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. However, despite an order from the tribunal, he refused to produce the recordings, citing concerns for his safety and that of his family.
He said he would not disclose them even if the tribunal subsequently found that they could exonerate him.
The tribunal drew an adverse inference from his refusal.
The arbitrators found it implausible that Adesanya would withhold recordings that could clear him of wrongdoing. They also noted that the payment structure subsequently introduced in the settlement addendum mirrored his own description of the alleged demand: Nigeria would pay $100 million initially, with the remaining $100 million to follow.
The tribunal concluded that Adesanya and Malami had reached a corrupt agreement. According to the award, the promised benefit was a share of the settlement money payable to Sunrise. Although the exact amount could not be established, Adesanya’s testimony suggested that the demand could have been as high as $100 million—half of the original settlement.
In return, the tribunal found that 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 declared the settlement agreement and addendum 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 in the alleged arrangement. No settlement money was ultimately paid because former President Muhammadu Buhari refused to approve the agreement.
The tribunal, however, held that the failure to complete the payment did not erase the corrupt nature of the arrangement. An offered or promised benefit, it noted, could constitute an improper advantage even if the payment was never made.
THREE OFFICIALS ESCAPE CORRUPTION FINDINGS
The tribunal also examined allegations involving Zacchaeus Adeyanju, Oben Ogar and Tanko Yusuf but found insufficient evidence to establish corrupt conduct.
Adeyanju, a Ministry of Justice official involved in preparing the 2020 settlement, received approximately $107,113 through 67 deposits and foreign-exchange transactions between June 2019 and June 2020.
However, the tribunal found no evidence that any of the money came from Adesanya or Sunrise.
Similarly, it found no evidence connecting Adesanya to approximately $3,700 that Adeyanju transferred to another ministry lawyer, Oben Ogar.
The allegations involving Ogar were consequently dismissed for lack of evidence.
Tanko Yusuf, an aide to Minister of Power Saleh Mamman, had his flights and accommodation in Dubai paid for by Adesanya while transporting the signed settlement agreement to the minister.
Adesanya also gave Yusuf an amount in pounds sterling in London, estimated by Nigeria at £5,000.
Adesanya claimed the cash was part of a currency-exchange arrangement under which Yusuf would provide the naira equivalent to Sotinrin.
A transfer of N3.325 million was eventually made to Sotinrin, although it occurred approximately 20 months later.
The tribunal described the travel arrangements as curious but concluded that the flights and accommodation were professional expenses rather than personal benefits.
It also found insufficient evidence concerning the amount of cash Yusuf received or any substantial influence he exercised over the settlement.
The tribunal therefore rejected Nigeria’s allegation that Yusuf had been compensated for influencing the agreement in Sunrise’s favour.
A PATTERN OF PAYMENTS THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT IGNORE
The ICC award did not establish that every payment examined was a bribe. For transactions involving Atiku, Agunloye, Dere Awosika and Sambo Dasuki, the tribunal identified gaps in the evidence concerning the specific official acts allegedly purchased. What it found, however, was a recurring pattern of financial dealings involving public officials, their relatives and individuals connected to the Mambilla project.
The transactions included undocumented loans, indirect payments, offshore companies, personal assistance and investments involving people linked to government decision-making. The tribunal said the pattern strengthened the inference that Adesanya had also offered Malami an improper benefit in connection with the 2020 settlement. It ultimately rejected Sunrise’s $400 million claim against Nigeria.
The government’s separate damages counterclaim was dismissed because Nigeria failed to establish the required causal connection between the corruption and the losses it claimed Nevertheless, the tribunal’s findings cast a harsh light on the more than two decades of financial dealings surrounding a project that never generated electricity for Nigeria but became the subject of successive disputes, agreements, settlements and international arbitration proceedings.
For Sunrise Power, the final award marked a decisive legal setback.
For Nigeria, it brought an extraordinary chapter in the Mambilla saga into sharper focus, revealing how the pursuit of a major infrastructure project became entangled in allegations of corruption, disputed payments and a costly legal battle over a power plant that remains unbuilt.
Source: TheCable
