The Independent Media and Policy Initiative (IMPI) has called on the Federal Government to initiate proceedings before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) against former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over an alleged undeclared $500,000 foreign transfer made to an account belonging to his then wife, Jennifer Douglas, while he was in office.
The call followed revelations highlighted by the group from a 616 page ruling by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris concerning the disputed 3,960 megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
In a policy statement signed by its chairman, Dr Omoniyi Akinsiju, IMPI said its review of the arbitral award showed that $500,000 was transferred on January 30, 2003, from China Castle Investments, an offshore company owned by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya, into a US Citibank account belonging to Douglas.
The group said the payment was made about two weeks before Sunrise Power submitted its tender for the multibbillion dollar Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract.
According to IMPI, the arbitral tribunal established a close chronological link between the January 30, 2003 payment and the alleged award of the BOT contract to Sunrise Power on May 22, 2003.
IMPI acknowledged that Atiku’s legal team has argued that the ICC tribunal did not make an explicit finding of bribery against the former vice president. However, the group said the tribunal rejected the contractor’s explanation that the $500,000 payment represented a domestic foreign exchange swap, citing the absence of supporting financial documentation.
The policy group described the timing of the transaction as a significant red flag in relation to the bidding process, while stressing that the arbitration proceedings were civil rather than criminal.
Akinsiju argued that the alleged transaction warranted scrutiny under Nigeria’s Code of Conduct framework.
«”Under Section 7 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, public officers are strictly prohibited from maintaining foreign bank accounts,” he said.
He added that if the former vice president was the ultimate source of the funds routed through a third party offshore entity, or maintained undeclared foreign accounts to support his family abroad while in office, such conduct would raise constitutional and statutory issues.
IMPI also drew attention to the wider circumstances surrounding the Mambilla concession, saying the arbitration proceedings showed that preliminary negotiations during the 2002–2003 concessioning period bypassed conventional ministerial channels.
The group cited US State Department diplomatic cables reviewed during the arbitration proceedings that described Adesanya as an “Atiku insider” with direct access to the executive branch and said he accompanied official Nigerian delegations to China.
IMPI stressed that Atiku was not a signatory to the procurement panel’s decisions but argued that his position as vice-president gave him substantial influence over economic affairs.
The organisation said undisclosed payments to a public official’s close associate or proxy around critical procurement periods raised serious transparency and conflict of interest concerns, even where a direct quid pro quo could not be established in civil proceedings.
“Even where direct quid pro quo instruction cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt in civil arbitration, the existence of unverified, off-record offshore transfers creates an untenable conflict of interest,” the statement said.
“It compromised the integrity of the original administrative process and set a dangerous precedent for major infrastructure concessions in Nigeria.”
IMPI consequently called for stronger institutional safeguards to ensure that high value infrastructure projects are negotiated within statutory ministerial frameworks.
On possible sanctions, the group said that, following a successful prosecution, the CCT could exercise statutory powers that include property forfeiture and a 10 year disqualification from holding public office, while noting that some administrative sanctions may no longer apply to a former public official.
