.jpeg)
By Stella Odueme
The Independent Media and Policy Initiative (IMPI) has questioned the integrity of former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, over a $500,000 transfer linked to the long-running dispute surrounding the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
In Policy Statement 043, signed by its Chairman, Omoniyi M. Akinsiju, in September 2026, the group said the findings contained in a 616-page ruling of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris raised questions that required further investigation.
IMPI was reacting to Atiku’s response to a demand by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council that he withdraw from the 2027 presidential race.
According to the group, Atiku had argued that the ICC tribunal did not issue a corruption verdict against him or establish that he accepted a bribe, and challenged the APC to identify the specific paragraph of the ruling that indicted him.
IMPI, however, said its review of the tribunal’s findings showed that the issue could not be dismissed solely on the basis that Atiku was not personally found liable for corruption.
The group cited the tribunal’s observation that there was “a close connection in time” between a $500,000 payment made to Atiku’s then-wife, Jennifer Douglas, on January 30, 2003, and the alleged award of the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract to Sunrise Power on May 22, 2003.
The statement said the payment was made through China Castle Investments, an offshore company controlled by Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise Power.
IMPI further cited evidence reviewed by the tribunal concerning the relationship between Atiku and Adesanya, including a 2003 US State Department diplomatic cable which described Adesanya as an “Atiku insider” and a close personal associate of the then Vice President.
The group also referred to Adesanya’s involvement in preliminary discussions on the Mambilla project and Atiku’s role in leading a Nigerian government delegation to China in 2002 in connection with the project.
According to IMPI, the $500,000 payment subsequently became a central issue in proceedings before the ICC tribunal.
The group said Adesanya told the tribunal that the payment was part of a foreign exchange transaction carried out on behalf of Atiku, under which Atiku allegedly provided naira in Nigeria while Adesanya paid the dollar equivalent into Douglas’ US account.
IMPI said the tribunal rejected that explanation, noting that Adesanya did not produce bank statements, receipts or a foreign exchange agreement to substantiate the transaction.
The group also said the tribunal noted that China Castle Investments did not hold a bureau de change licence.
IMPI argued that the timing of the payment, its routing through an offshore company and the absence of supporting commercial documentation raised questions about the nature and purpose of the transaction.
It, however, acknowledged that the arbitration proceedings concerned contractual claims involving the Federal Government and Sunrise Power, rather than a criminal prosecution of Atiku.
The organisation said the circumstances nevertheless warranted investigation into whether the payment represented an undisclosed financial relationship or potential conflict of interest involving a senior public officials
IMPI also raised questions concerning Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on asset declaration by public officers.
It argued that if the $500,000 was connected to Atiku or constituted funds beneficially belonging to him while he was Vice President, investigators should establish whether the transaction was reflected in his mandatory asset declarations.
The group also questioned whether any foreign account or financial arrangement associated with the transaction complied with provisions of Nigeria’s Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.
IMPI said the fact that Atiku is no longer in public office should not, in its view, prevent investigation of alleged infractions that may have occurred while he was a public officer.
It called for relevant anti-corruption institutions to examine the financial records, banking trails and other evidence surrounding the transaction.
IMPI said the conflicting accounts attributed to Douglas and Adesanya regarding the source and purpose of the $500,000 warranted further scrutiny.
The group maintained that questions remained over how the money originated, why it was transferred through China Castle Investments, whether Atiku was involved in the transaction and whether it had any connection with the Mambilla procurement process.
It therefore called on the Federal Government and relevant anti-corruption agencies to investigate the transaction and determine whether any criminal or Code of Conduct violations occurred.