Malami explains role in $200m Mambila project settlement

Former attorney-general of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami, has clarified his role in the $200 million settlement controversy surrounding the Mambilla hydropower project. In a statement issued by his media aide, Malami firmly rejected claims that his actions as AGF were motivated by personal financial gain. He emphasized that the tribunal's findings, which alleged a corrupt agreement between him and Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya for personal benefit, needed to be tested against the entire evidentiary record.

The tribunal's 616-page award found that Malami and Adesanya shared the intention of securing a settlement favorable to Sunrise Power, at the expense of the Nigerian government. However, Malami maintained that there was no evidence presented linking him to any financial benefit from the dispute. He pointed out that the settlement money itself was never paid by the federal government to Sunrise Power.

Instead, the tribunal ordered Sunrise Power and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria $11.82 million in legal fees and $414,125 in arbitration costs, as well as bear their own legal expenses.

Malami highlighted that the controversy dated back to 2003, long before he became attorney-general, and had gone through multiple administrations and legal representatives. He acknowledged that the federal government had been grappling with Sunrise's claims, estimated in the billions, which had become a hindrance to financing discussions for the Mambilla project. The government's decision to settle for a smaller amount was seen as a way to resolve the issue and advance the project.

Although President Buhari did not approve the $200 million payment, Malami stated that he did not direct Sunrise to be paid despite the President's stance. Instead, he instructed the federal government's counsel to resist Sunrise's attempts to adopt or enforce the settlement terms against Nigeria, thus preserving the government's legal position. A comprehensive response to the tribunal's findings is expected after a thorough review of the award and the underlying records.

Malami cautioned against reading the tribunal's findings as a criminal conviction, emphasizing that the proceedings were commercial arbitration between parties to a dispute, and not a criminal prosecution against Malami. He also noted that Malami was neither a party to the proceedings nor given an opportunity to present his side of the story.

The tribunal had criticized Malami for not appearing for oral examination during the proceedings, but he argued that the seriousness of the findings should be considered in light of the complete evidentiary and documentary record.