Malami explained his role in the completion of the $200 million Mambila project

Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami has explained what he said about his role in the dispute between Sunrise Power and the federal government in relation to the Mampilla hydroelectric project and the $200 million settlement of which he was allegedly a beneficiary.

In a statement issued on Tuesday by Mohammed Bello Doka, his special assistant on media, Malami said he rejected the notion that his actions as AGF were motivated by promises of personal financial gain.

“Malami rejects the notion that his official actions were undertaken based on corrupt agreements or in exchange for personal financial gain,” the statement said.

“Such allegations must ultimately be tested against the full evidentiary record.”

The court, in a 616-page ruling, found that Malami and Adesanya had the same intention of seeking a settlement in favor of Sunrise and at the expense of Nigeria.

The report also examines communications between the two men, Malami’s role in settlement negotiations and subsequent efforts to gain presidential approval for the payments.

Malami said there was no evidence presented to court linking him to any financial gain in the dispute.

“One obvious factual question is whether any money or other financial benefit from Sunrise, Adesanya or any other related entity was ever received by Malami based on the alleged arrangement,” Malami said.

“The settlement money itself was never paid by the federal government to Sunrise.”

Malami said the “existence, non-production, authenticity and content” of Adesanya’s recordings were matters that were “obviously important as evidence”.

The former AGF also rejected suggestions that he initiated the Sunrise dispute or independently introduced the settlement.

The statement noted that the controversy dates back to 2003, years before Malami became attorney general, and has passed through several administrations, attorneys general and ministries.

It said the federal government had been dealing with Sunrise’s claims totaling billions of dollars, while unresolved disputes had become an obstacle in funding discussions for the Mampilla project.

“The government’s calculation is whether the multibillion-dollar exposure, ongoing litigation, funding difficulties and delays to the Mampilla project can be ended through a much smaller negotiated settlement,” Malami said.

“Whether each requirement was ultimately negotiated to achieve those goals is a separate question and must be examined on its own evidence.”

Malami admitted that Buhari did not approve the payment.

“Following the President’s refusal to approve payment, Malami did not directly order that Sunrise be paid regardless of the position of President,” the statement added.

Malami said he instructed legal counsel representing the federal government “to reject Sunrise’s efforts to have the terms of the settlement adopted or enforced against Nigeria and to preserve the legal position of the Federal Government”.

In his statement, Malami said a comprehensive response to the court’s individual findings would be undertaken after a review of the full ruling and the underlying record.

The statement also warned against presenting the court’s findings as a criminal conviction.

“This process is a commercial arbitration process between the parties to the dispute. This process does not constitute a criminal complaint against Abubakar Malami, SAN, and the decision does not constitute a criminal punishment against him,” he said.

He added that Malami “was not a party to the process, nor was he given the opportunity to state his own side of the story”.

The court criticized Malami for not appearing for oral examination during the trial after submitting a witness statement.

Malami said the seriousness of the findings should not be discounted, but argued they should be considered alongside complete documentation and evidentiary records.

“Such findings should be considered based on the full evidence and documentary record, not through specific passages circulating in the media,” he said.

Malami also welcomed Nigeria’s victory in the arbitration, saying that protecting the country from huge financial losses is an outcome every Nigerian should accept.

The court, in its decision, ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for $11.82 million in legal fees and $414,125 in arbitration fees. They also have to cover their own legal costs.

Malami was reacting to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) court resolution stating that the $200 million settlement reached between Sunrise and the federal government in 2020 was a product of corruption that benefited the former AGF.

In January 2020, Malami and Energy Minister Saleh Mamman signed an agreement under which Nigeria would pay Sunrise $200 million.

An addendum signed in March split the amount into two $100 million installments and exposed Nigeria to an additional $200 million in default payments, excluding interest.

Leno Adesanya, a Sunrise Power promoter, testified that Malami and Mamman demanded that he pay 50 percent of the payment as a bribe. He said they told him that Nigeria would pay the first part and release the second part after he did “what is necessary”.

Adesanya told the court he rejected the demands. He also admitted to having audio and video recordings of the conversation.

Despite a court order, he refused to make the recording, citing concerns for his and his family’s safety.

The court concluded that a corrupt agreement had been reached between Adesanya and Malami.

The agreement identified promised benefits as part of the settlement money paid to Sunrise.

While the exact amount agreed upon cannot be confirmed, Adesanya’s own evidence suggests a request of $100 million – half the initial settlement amount.

The court found that Malami cooperated in binding Nigeria to the addendum, signing terms that could have exposed the country to liability of $400 million and coordinating procedural steps with Adesanya.

The court also found that the settlement agreement and addendum were the product of corruption and therefore unenforceable. It did not make similar findings against Mamman because the classified recordings were the only potential direct evidence of his role.

No settlement money was ultimately paid because President Muhammadu Buhari refused to approve the arrangement. The court said that did not remove the corrupt nature of the promise.