Mambilla: Malami Denies Corrupt Deal With Adesanya

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), has welcomed Nigeria’s victory in the arbitration over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project while rejecting allegations that he entered into a corrupt arrangement with Sunrise Power promoter, Leno Adesanya.

Naija News reports that Malami’s position was contained in a statement issued by his Special Assistant on Media, Mohammed Doka, on Tuesday, following the International Chamber of Commerce tribunal’s dismissal of claims brought against Nigeria by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.

The 616-page final award, delivered in Paris on September 16, 2026, rejected Sunrise’s claims relating to the Mambilla project and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for part of its legal costs.

However, the tribunal also made critical findings concerning Malami’s handling of a settlement agreement with Sunrise, including what it described as a corrupt arrangement involving the former AGF and Adesanya. The tribunal said Malami acted against Nigeria’s interests and was “motivated by other incentive(s).”

Reacting to the findings, Malami stressed that the proceedings were commercial arbitration rather than a criminal trial, arguing that the award should not be interpreted 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,” his statement said.

The former minister, however, acknowledged the seriousness of the findings attributed to the tribunal, saying they should be considered against the complete documentary and evidentiary record.

“Those matters should not be ignored, trivialised or answered by speculation,” the statement added.

The tribunal had found that a 2020 settlement agreement and a subsequent addendum involving Sunrise were not binding on Nigeria because they lacked the required presidential approval. It also held that the agreements were unenforceable because corruption tainted them and they contravened Nigerian public policy.

Malami also provided historical context, saying the controversy surrounding Sunrise and the Mambilla project predated his tenure as Attorney-General.

According to him, Sunrise became involved in the proposed project in 2003, while successive administrations and Attorneys-General handled the resulting contractual disputes.

He said former AGF Michael Aondoakaa had reviewed the matter before his tenure and recommended an amicable resolution. The Federal Government subsequently entered into a General Project Execution Agreement involving Sunrise and Sinohydro in November 2012.

“The relevance of this history is straightforward: Malami did not create the Sunrise dispute, introduce Sunrise to the Mambilla project, or originate the Federal Government’s attempts to settle the controversy.

“He inherited a longstanding dispute that had traversed previous administrations, Attorneys-General, ministries and contractual arrangements,” the statement said.

Malami said his involvement followed government and presidential processes, including a directive the then Chief of Staff to President Muhammadu Buhari issued in April 2016 on the dispute.

He said the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility was principally to advise the Federal Government on its legal exposure and possible options for resolving the matter.

Malami said the dispute had become an impediment to financing discussions for the Mambilla project by 2019, including negotiations involving China Exim Bank.

He said Sunrise initially demanded $500m as a full and final settlement during negotiations in London in November 2019, while Federal Government representatives proposed $100m before negotiations eventually centred on $200m.

“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,” he said.

Malami stressed that Buhari eventually rejected the proposed $200 million settlement.

He said Buhari indicated on April 20, 2020, that the Federal Government did not have $200 million to pay Sunrise and that it communicated that position to the company two days later.

He added that another request for presidential approval in January 2021 was rejected, with Buhari writing, “Not approved.”

The ICC tribunal similarly found that no presidential approval had been obtained for the settlement agreements and described Buhari’s “Not approved” response as leaving no room for interpretation.

Malami said his subsequent actions should also be considered, arguing that he directed Federal Government lawyers to resist Sunrise’s attempt to enforce the settlement after Buhari declined to approve it.

The statement said, “Malami did not simply direct that Sunrise be paid regardless of the President’s position.

“When Sunrise asserted that Nigeria was consequently in default… Malami instructed counsel representing the Federal Government to resist Sunrise’s attempt to have the settlement terms adopted or enforced against Nigeria and to preserve the Federal Government’s legal position.”

The tribunal, however, reached a different assessment of Malami’s conduct during the negotiations, saying he had acted against Nigeria’s interests and that his dealings with Adesanya reflected an “inappropriate relationship.”

On the tribunal’s reported finding of a corrupt arrangement between him and Adesanya, Malami issued a categorical denial.

“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.

He argued that the allegation should be assessed against the complete evidence, including whether he ever received money or any other financial benefit from Sunrise, Adesanya or any entity connected to them.

The statement also referred to reports that Adesanya claimed to have audio or video recordings relevant to his allegations but that the recordings were not produced before the tribunal.

“Where allegations of this gravity are made, the existence, non-production, authenticity and contents of any claimed recordings are matters of obvious evidentiary importance,” Malami said.

The tribunal, however, cited communications between Malami and Adesanya and concluded that their dealings indicated an inappropriate relationship. It also said Malami acted to Sunrise’s benefit during the settlement discussions.

Despite the controversy surrounding Malami’s role, Nigeria secured a favourable outcome in the arbitration.

Sunrise had sought hundreds of millions of dollars in one arbitration and more than $2.7 billion in another dispute linked to the Mambilla project. The tribunal rejected the claims and dismissed Sunrise’s demand for $400 million arising from the disputed settlement agreement and alleged default.

It also ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for legal and arbitration costs.

President Bola Tinubu welcomed the award, describing it as removing a major legal obstacle that had stalled the Mambilla project for years. He also commended the Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria’s defence team and witnesses who participated in the arbitration.

Malami said he was pleased that Nigeria’s financial interests had been protected.

“Nigeria’s victory should be welcomed, and findings concerning the conduct of former public officials should be carefully examined and answered on the evidence,” he said.

He added that he would issue a more detailed response to the tribunal’s individual findings after a full review of the award and accompanying records.