By Okoi Obono-obla
The involvement of the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, in the sordid findings made by the judgment of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Tribunal in the case filed by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Ltd against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, delivered on 17 September 2026, is mind-boggling and treasonous.
The Tribunal held that Malami was negotiating on behalf of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Ltd instead of protecting the interest of Nigeria, that he solicited a bribe from the company, and that even after President Muhammadu Buhari explicitly rejected the terms of settlement which involved Nigeria paying $400 million to the company, he deceived the President to approve such a bogus transaction. This is condemnable in the strongest terms.
The 616-page Final Award and the findings on Malami are unusually severe for an international tribunal.
1. On negotiating for Sunrise and doubling Nigeria’s exposure:
The Tribunal found:
“The tribunal said Malami was effectively negotiating for Sunrise rather than the federal government when he altered the terms of a proposed $200 million settlement in a way that potentially doubled Nigeria’s exposure to $400 million, with interest accruing at 10 percent per annum compounded daily.”
The Award stated explicitly:
“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.”
It added that Malami’s deliberate conduct led it to conclude that he “was motivated by other incentive(s)” and that it was “unable to discern any upside for Nigeria in the renegotiated terms.”
2. On inappropriate relationship and corrupt deal:
“In unusually strong language, it said Malami maintained an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise, and participated in what it described as a ‘corrupt deal’ connected with the settlement agreements”
“On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found that a corrupt agreement was reached under which Malami was promised a share of the money Sunrise would receive…” 3a10
The Tribunal concluded:
“In conclusion… the Tribunal therefore considers that a corrupt deal was reached between Mr Adesanya on the one hand, and Mr Malami on the other hand, rendering the Settlement Agreement and the Addendum thereto a product of corruption,”
3. On deceiving President Buhari:
The Tribunal found that Malami signed the January and March 2020 agreements without presidential approval and then repeatedly sought approval after.
“It also accused the former minister of supplying President Muhammadu Buhari with incorrect information about the financial implications of the settlement and repeatedly seeking presidential approval even after Buhari had expressly refused to approve it.”
Buhari’s handwritten rejections were quoted as “FG hasn’t got USD 200m to pay” on 20 April 2020 and “Not approved” on 11 January 2021.
“Attorney-General Malami failed to provide President Buhari with the correct information,” the tribunal said.
4. On soliciting bribe and lack of moral compass:
The Tribunal considered Adesanya’s testimony that Malami solicited a bribe during negotiations and that he possessed audio/video recordings where Malami said Nigeria would pay $100m initially and release the second $100m after he had done “what is needed.”
“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…”
It described WhatsApp exchanges where Adesanya thanked Malami for his “recent efforts to see that we get paid” and Malami replied “Thank you Mr Leno” as “wholly inappropriate” and:
“In the context of that inappropriate relation, the gentlemen shared a high degree of trust and, it would appear, a lack of moral compass… Not only did Attorney-General Malami act against the best interest of Nigeria, he was actively applying his efforts to the benefit of Sunrise so ‘that we get paid’.”
Today, Abubakar Malami, SAN, is in the same party as Atiku Abubakar and is the present gubernatorial candidate for the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the 6 February 2027 election in Kebbi State, Nigeria. Is it a case of birds of the same feather flocking together?
Conclusion:
The ICC Tribunal did not merely reject Sunrise’s $400 million claim; it declared the settlement agreements unenforceable both for lack of presidential authority and as products of corruption contrary to Nigerian public policy. A former Chief Law Officer of the Federation found by an international tribunal to have been negotiating for the opposing side, soliciting a bribe, misleading his own President, and sharing a “lack of moral compass” with a contractor raises profound questions of patriotism and public trust. That such a person and Atiku Abubakar, whose family received the unexplained $500,000 payment that the same Tribunal flagged, now share the same political platform as standard-bearers for the 2027 elections, is indeed a telling reflection on integrity.
