ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Minister of Federal Capital Territory FCT Nyesom Wike will today speak on the essence of Rainbow Coalition, President Bola TInubu and the 2027 general elections .

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has constituted a team to investigate individuals named in alleged questionable dealings linked to the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, following a recent ruling by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris, France, in favour of Nigeria.

Sources familiar with the development told Premium Times that the investigative team is being supervised by the Chairman of the EFCC, Ola Olukoyede.

The investigation comes days after the ICC tribunal dismissed major claims brought before it by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited against Nigeria over the 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State.

The company had made a claim against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, demanding $680 million as a settlement sum and interest in respect of another arbitration in which it is claiming over $2.7 billion in compensation and interest.

Delivering its verdict on Thursday, the tribunal directed Sunrise and its promoter to refund Nigeria’s legal fees of $11.8 million. It also rejected Sunrise’s claim for an order that Nigeria should pay the company $400 million in satisfaction of the settlement sum of $200 million and the default sum of $200 million.

The tribunal insisted that Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise, is bound by the arbitration agreement with Nigeria pursuant to the settlement agreement, adding that it has jurisdiction over Nigeria’s counterclaim against him and his firm.

According to sources, EFCC investigation will focus on individuals mentioned in the tribunal’s findings over payments and transactions that the panel described as raising concerns or ‘red flags.’

The tribunal revealed that many Nigerian politicians and individuals who held public offices were named as associates or officials who had dealings with Adesanya

The officials include former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, his then-wife Jennifer Douglas, Abubakar Malami, Olu Agunloye, Sambo Dasuki, his son Abubakar Dasuki, Abdullahi Yola, and Dere Awosika.

Malami, a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), was severely criticised by the tribunal for acting against Nigeria’s national interest. He was accused of maintaining an “inappropriate relationship” with Adesanya, and entering into a corrupt deal. Already, Mr Malami is facing trial after the EFCC accused him, his wife, and son of conspiring to conceal, disguise and retain about N8.7 billion proceeds of unlawful activities.

Atiku, former vice president of Nigeria, was named by the tribunal in its review of a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya on 30 January 2003 from the Swiss bank account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Ltd, to a US bank account belonging to Ms Douglas, Atiku’s ex-wife.

The payment was made less than four months before the Mambilla BOT contract was purportedly awarded to Sunrise by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye. Mr Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku through his bureau de change business.

But the tribunal said that the explanation was not supported by documentary evidence. It said Adesanya did not produce records showing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence concerning the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.

The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Ms Douglas provided a witness statement or declaration supporting the explanation.

It noted that Atiku had led a Nigerian government delegation to Beijing in July 2002, which included Adesanya, during which the Nigerian government and the Chinese state-owned NCPEC signed a memorandum of understanding covering, among other projects, the Mambilla project.

However, Atiku has denied being indicted by the tribunal and said he was not responsible for awarding the contract.

Agunloye, a former minister of Power and Steel, was linked to payments he described as part of “medical expenses”. He is currently standing trial over charges relating to the Mambilla power project.

The tribunal also questioned payments of $1.74 million made to Abubakar Dasuki, the son of Sambo Dasuki, a former National Security Adviser (NSA), adding that the transaction raised “considerable red flags.”

The tribunal said Dasuki failed to substantiate his claim that the payment was a loan, citing inconsistencies in his evidence, the absence of a loan agreement and the lack of records showing how the transaction was accounted for by Sunrise.

Yola and Awosika were also named among those involved in alleged bribery and the receipt of controversial payments.

Sources told Premium Times that the EFCC may invite Atiku and his ex-wife, Douglas, for questioning in the coming days or weeks.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over his decision to stay away from the United Nations General Assembly for the third consecutive year.

Atiku’s criticism followed the Presidency’s announcement that Vice President Kashim Shettima would represent Tinubu and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of the UNGA in New York. The 2026 General Debate is scheduled for September 22 to 28.

In a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu had been absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and would again not attend the 81st session in 2026.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, said the repeated delegation of the Vice President could no longer be regarded as routine diplomatic representation.

He argued that the UNGA provides heads of government with an important platform to advance their countries’ interests, hold bilateral meetings, attract investments, pursue trade opportunities and engage development partners.

According to him, while Shettima could effectively represent Nigeria, the Vice President’s participation could not completely substitute for the President’s personal presence and visibility at a major international diplomatic gathering.

Atiku further argued that Nigeria could lose opportunities for investment and development financing when the President is absent from such high-level engagements.

“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs,” he said.

The former vice president also questioned reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured a seat for Tinubu close to United States President Donald Trump during the General Assembly.

“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.

He also questioned reports that the Tinubu administration had spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists, asking why Nigeria would commit such funds to lobbying efforts in the United States while the President repeatedly stayed away from the UN gathering in New York.

“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money?” Atiku asked.

Questions over Tinubu’s US legal history

Atiku subsequently raised questions about Tinubu’s past legal proceedings in the United States, citing Case No. 93 C 4483 before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

He referred to the forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, alleging that US court documents linked the funds to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

Atiku said the proceedings ultimately resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the US government.

However, he stressed that he was not claiming Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.

“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” Atiku said.

He nevertheless questioned whether Tinubu’s past legal history in the US had any connection with his repeated absence from the UNGA.

“Nigerians are therefore entitled to ask whether Tinubu’s three consecutive UNGA absences have anything to do with this documented American history,” he said.

Atiku called on the Presidency to explain the reason for Tinubu’s absence if there was no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment preventing him from attending.

“Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?” he asked.

He also questioned whether the President’s absence could affect Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement with the United States and other countries.

Atiku concluded by demanding greater transparency from the Presidency over the decision to send Shettima to the UNGA for a third consecu