by Okoi Obono-Obla
One of the most significant findings in the 616-page Final Award of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Tribunal in the arbitration filed by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Ltd against the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerns the promoter of the company, Leno Adesanya, and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (1999-2007).
The tribunal, which issued its award on 17 September 2026 in Paris, rejected Sunrise’s claims in their entirety. In examining Adesanya’s conduct, it described a pattern of payments and financial incentives involving public officials or their relatives, but stopped short of declaring every questioned transaction a proved bribe.
According to the award, Adesanya moved millions of dollars and naira through companies, intermediaries and relatives of influential Nigerian officials as he pursued control of the Mambilla hydropower project. The tribunal examined payments linked to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar; former Minister of Power and Steel Olu Agunloye; former Solicitor-General Abdullahi Yola; former Permanent Secretary Dere Awosika; and former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki.
The money did not always pass directly to officials. In several instances, it went to their wives, children, assistants or associated companies. Adesanya used entities including China Castle Investments Limited, Lutin Investments Limited and Sunrise itself.
The clearest finding of corruption concerned a different transaction: an alleged promise by Adesanya to pay then Attorney-General Abubakar Malami a portion of a proposed $200 million settlement. The tribunal found that a corrupt agreement was reached under which Malami was promised a share of the money Sunrise would receive, although no settlement money was eventually paid.
The $500,000 Transfer
One of the earliest payments identified was a $500,000 transfer to Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, who was then married to Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
On 30 January 2003, China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company controlled by Adesanya, transferred the money from its Swiss bank account to Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States.
The timing attracted the tribunal’s attention. In July 2002, Atiku had led a Nigerian delegation to China that resulted in a memorandum of understanding covering Mambilla. Less than four months after the $500,000 transfer, Agunloye issued the 22 May 2003 letter on which Sunrise based its claim to the Mambilla build-operate-transfer contract.
Adesanya admitted the payment but claimed it was an ordinary foreign-exchange transaction for Atiku through Moneyline Ventures Limited. The tribunal rejected that explanation. No contemporaneous document, licence or communication was produced, and China Castle — the actual transferor — held no foreign-exchange licence and had no currency trading purpose.
The tribunal found significant red flags but said there was no evidence that Atiku exercised his governmental powers to secure the contract for Sunrise. It therefore did not make a definitive finding that the $500,000 was a bribe, stating only that it could not exclude the possibility that it was connected to Atiku’s leading role in the project.
What the Code of Conduct Actually Requires
In modern Nigerian law, a husband and wife are not regarded as one person. They are distinct legal persons. Criminal liability is also personal — there is no vicarious criminal liability merely because of a family relationship.
The Code of Conduct for Public Officers in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) creates a different obligation.
Paragraph 11(1) requires every public officer to submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau, within three months of taking office, at the end of every four years, and at the end of his term of office, a written declaration of all his properties, assets and liabilities and those of his unmarried children under the age of 18 years.
Paragraph 11(3) provides that any property or assets acquired after any declaration which is not fairly attributable to income, gift or loan approved by the Code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of the Code unless the contrary is proved.
In practice, the Code of Conduct Bureau Form extends this to include the assets of a spouse who is not a public officer, together with unmarried children under 18.
A public officer is obligated to explain the source of wealth acquired during his tenure. If any property declared was not fairly attributable to lawful income, gift or approved loan, it is deemed to be in breach unless he proves otherwise.
Atiku Abubakar served as Vice-President from 29 May 1999 to 29 May 2007. His end-of-term declaration was due within three months after 29 May 2007. At the time the $500,000 was transferred in January 2003, Mrs Jennifer Douglas Abubakar was still married to him.
It follows that in his asset declaration after his tenure expired, he was supposed to state vividly the source of wealth generated by his wife, Mrs Jennifer Douglas Abubakar, during the currency of his office. If he failed to do as required, he may be held liable for breach of the Code of Conduct provisions.
Conclusion
The ICC Tribunal did not convict Atiku Abubakar and did not find that he exercised his office to award Mambilla to Sunrise. Its finding on the $500,000 was limited to red flags and a rejected foreign-exchange explanation.
The legal significance, however, lies in the Code of Conduct framework. If a public officer’s spouse received substantial funds during his tenure and those funds were not declared or their lawful source not explained, the Code deems such acquisition a breach unless the officer proves otherwise.
Whether Atiku Abubakar declared the funds transferred to his then wife and explained their source in his declarations to the Code of Conduct Bureau after leaving office is therefore the proper test under the 1999 Constitution — not the doctrine that husband and wife are one, and not vicarious criminal liability, which Nigerian law does not recognise.
