…says ex-AGF negotiated for Sunrise, gave Buhari incorrect information
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal has severely criticised former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, over his handling of the controversial Mambilla hydropower dispute, finding that he acted against Nigeria’s interests and participated in what it described as a “corrupt deal”.
In its 616-page final award delivered in Paris on September 16, 2026, the three-member tribunal said Malami maintained an “inappropriate relationship” with Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, while the company and Nigeria were opposing parties in arbitration proceedings.
The tribunal found that Malami was effectively negotiating for Sunrise rather than the Federal Government when he altered the terms of a $200 million settlement, potentially increasing Nigeria’s exposure to $400 million, with interest accruing at 10 percent per annum compounded daily.
“The Tribunal concludes that Attorney-General Malami has not been negotiating on behalf of Nigeria when he insisted on a change of the terms and conditions of the settlement but for Sunrise,” the award stated.
It added that Malami’s deliberate conduct against Nigeria’s interests suggested that he “was motivated by other incentive(s)”.
The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims against Nigeria in their entirety and ruled that the 2020 settlement agreement and its addendum were not binding on the Federal Government because Malami and then Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, lacked the authority to bind Nigeria without presidential approval.
It also found that the agreements were products of corruption and therefore unenforceable for violating Nigerian public policy.
The tribunal ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria $11.82 million in legal fees and $414,125 in arbitration costs.
Malami ‘negotiated for Sunrise’
A major focus of the tribunal’s findings was the renegotiation of the settlement agreement shortly after it was signed on January 21, 2020.
Under the original agreement, Nigeria was to pay Sunrise $200 million in a single instalment. A default would have resulted in Sunrise being reinstated as the exclusive local content partner for the Mambilla project, while interest on unpaid sums would accrue at 10 percent annually.
However, an addendum signed on March 25, 2020 split the payment into two $100 million instalments and introduced an additional $200 million default penalty.
Interest on the outstanding amount was also changed to 10 percent per annum compounded daily.
The tribunal said the revised terms represented a “seemingly substantial deterioration” of Nigeria’s position and that it could not identify any corresponding benefit for the country.
“The Tribunal is unable to discern any upside for Nigeria in the renegotiated terms and conditions,” it said.
According to the tribunal, while Sunrise stood to receive up to $400 million instead of $200 million, Nigeria assumed significantly greater financial exposure.
From ‘criminal’ to trusted partner
The tribunal also questioned Malami’s dramatic change in his assessment of Adesanya and Sunrise.
In January 2018, Malami had described Adesanya in an email to Buhari’s chief of staff as “a criminal of the highest order” and the “number 1 enemy” of the Mambilla project.
He had also previously concluded that Sunrise had no valid basis for claiming that it had been awarded the Mambilla build-operate-transfer contract.
But by January 2020, Malami had approved an offer of $200 million to Sunrise and subsequently signed the settlement agreement and addendum that increased Nigeria’s potential liability to $400 million plus interest.
The tribunal said Malami’s position had changed from describing Adesanya as a person pursuing frivolous claims to treating him as a trusted contractual partner.
It said it would have liked Malami to explain how his later assessment of Sunrise’s legal position could be reconciled with his earlier view that there was no basis for the company’s claim.
Tribunal backs bribe allegation
The tribunal also examined handwritten instructions issued by Malami shortly after the original settlement was signed.
It said Malami called for the payment to be staggered and sought renegotiation of other aspects of the agreement despite no new development being identified to justify the changes.
The tribunal described the move as “suspicious” and said it was consistent with Adesanya’s testimony that Malami had solicited a bribe and demanded a portion of the settlement money.
Adesanya had testified that he possessed audio and video recordings of conversations in which Malami and Mamman allegedly discussed Nigeria paying $100 million initially and releasing the second $100 million after Adesanya had done “what is needed”.
Adesanya, however, declined to produce the recordings, citing concerns for his safety and that of his family.
The tribunal drew an adverse inference from the withholding of the recordings and noted that the two-instalment structure corresponded with Adesanya’s account.
“Against this background, the Tribunal has no reason to doubt the veracity of Mr. Adesanya’s testimony to the effect that Attorney-General Malami solicited a bribe from Mr. Adesanya during the conversation he recorded,” the award said.
However, the tribunal said there was insufficient evidence to make a similar conclusive finding against Mamman concerning his precise role.
‘Inappropriate relationship’
The tribunal also examined extensive WhatsApp exchanges between Malami and Adesanya while Sunrise and Nigeria were opposing parties in ICC arbitrations.
In one exchange in November 2021, Adesanya asked Malami to disengage Nigeria’s international lawyers, White & Case, and Supo Shasore from the arbitration.
Adesanya also thanked Malami for his “recent efforts to see that we get paid”.
Malami responded: “Thank you Mr Leno.”
The tribunal described the nature and content of the exchanges as “wholly inappropriate” and said Malami neither stopped the communications nor disavowed their contents.
It also found that Adesanya supplied Malami with proposed letters to be issued in the name of the Federal Government.
One such draft purported to convey Buhari’s approval for the immediate payment of $200 million to Sunrise, although the tribunal found that Buhari had not given such approval.
The tribunal described the collaboration as “highly unusual” and “suspect”, saying the evidence presented “a disturbing picture” of two people who were supposed to represent opposing interests but instead coordinated closely.
“In the context of that inappropriate relation, the gentlemen shared a high degree of trust and, it would appear, a lack of moral compass,” the tribunal said.
It added that Malami had not only acted against Nigeria’s best interests but had actively worked to benefit Sunrise “so ‘that we get paid.’”
Buhari repeatedly refused approval
The tribunal found that Malami and Mamman signed the January 2020 settlement agreement and March 2020 addendum without obtaining approval from then President Muhammadu Buhari or the Federal Executive Council.
Malami subsequently sought Buhari’s approval.
On April 20, 2020, Buhari declined, stating that the Federal Government did not have $200 million to pay Sunrise.
Malami nevertheless returned to the president with further proposals.
On January 11, 2021, he again sought approval for further negotiations with Sunrise, to which Buhari responded with the handwritten words: “Not approved.”
“The words ‘not approved’ leave no room for interpretation,” the tribunal said.
It described Malami’s persistence in seeking approval despite Buhari’s repeated refusal as “remarkable”.
The tribunal ultimately found that no presidential approval was obtained for the agreements, whether expressly or implicitly, orally or in writing, before or after their execution.
Tribunal faults information given to Buhari
The tribunal also criticised the information Malami supplied to Buhari while seeking approval for the settlement.
In an August 17, 2020 brief, Malami told Buhari that the proposed settlement would cost Nigeria $200 million and save the government $2.154 billion in potential liability.
The tribunal found the information to be incorrect.
By then, the addendum provided for a $200 million settlement sum, another $200 million default sanction and interest at 10 percent per annum compounded daily.
“Attorney-General Malami failed to provide President Buhari with the correct information,” the tribunal said.
It added that Malami should also have qualified his claim about the potential $2.154 billion saving by informing Buhari that Sunrise had not established the damages it was claiming.
Malami refused to testify
The tribunal also criticised Malami for refusing to appear for oral examination at the January 2025 hearing in Paris.
Nigeria told the tribunal that Malami no longer wished to testify because he was under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The tribunal noted, however, that Malami was in Paris during the hearing and had accompanied Buhari, his father-in-law, who appeared and gave oral evidence.
It described Malami’s refusal to testify as “particularly unsatisfactory”, noting that he was a former chief law officer who understood the importance of cross-examination and due process.
The tribunal therefore accorded limited weight, if any, to his witness statement and recorded its “serious dissatisfaction” with his refusal to participate in the proceedings.
Tribunal finds ‘corrupt relation’
After considering the revised payment structure, Malami’s change of position on Sunrise’s claim, his repeated attempts to obtain Buhari’s approval and his communications with Adesanya, the tribunal identified five major “red flags”.
They included the restructuring of the payment terms in a manner corresponding with Adesanya’s account of the alleged bribe demand, the deterioration of Nigeria’s contractual position, Malami’s unexplained change of opinion about Sunrise’s case, his persistence in seeking Buhari’s approval and his coordination with Adesanya.
“The Tribunal is persuaded that these red flags are indicative of a corrupt relation between Mr. Adesanya and Attorney-General Malami,” the award said.
On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found that a corrupt agreement had been reached under which Malami was promised a share of the money Sunrise would receive.
It said Malami cooperated in committing Nigeria to the settlement obligations and coordinated steps connected with the arbitrations.
The tribunal concluded that the January 2020 settlement agreement and March 2020 addendum were “a product of corruption”.
It further found that Malami and Adesanya shared a common intention to use unlawful means to obtain a settlement favourable to Sunrise at Nigeria’s expense.
However, the tribunal expressly declined to find that any portion of the additional $200 million default sanction had also been promised to Malami or Mamman, saying the absence of the withheld recordings made such a finding impossible.
Background
Sunrise commenced arbitration against Nigeria at the ICC International Court of Arbitration on October 10, 2017, seeking about $2.354 billion over an alleged breach of contract relating to the proposed Mambilla hydropower project in Taraba State.
The company later relied on the 2020 settlement agreement to pursue a further claim for $400 million, comprising the $200 million settlement sum and a $200 million default payment.
The ICC tribunal ultimately rejected the claims and ordered Sunrise and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria for the bulk of its legal costs.
The ruling has been described by the Federal Government as clearing a major legal obstacle to the long-delayed Mambilla hydropower project. President Bola Tinubu also welcomed the decision, saying it rejected claims worth more than $3.38 billion linked to the dispute.
