Mambilla: Atiku’s Aide Challenges Onanuga To Produce $500,000 Bribe Finding

A war of words has erupted between the Presidency and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s media team over a $500,000 payment linked to the disputed Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

The Special Assistant to Atiku on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, to produce the portion of the Paris arbitration award which allegedly found that Atiku received a $500,000 bribe.

Shaibu made the challenge in a post via social media, on Friday, in response to Onanuga’s allegation that Atiku was indicted over the Mambilla contract.

Onanuga had accused Atiku of avoiding questions about the payment, alleging that the former vice-president received $500,000 from Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya in connection with the contract.

He cited the tribunal’s observation that “There is a close connection in time between the moment the USD 500,000 payment was made to the wife of Vice-President Abubakar on 30 January 2003 and the alleged award of the BOT contract to Sunrise on 22 May 2003.”

But Shaibu disputed Onanuga’s characterisation of the arbitration proceedings, insisting that a commercial arbitration tribunal did not indict, charge or convict Atiku.

READ ALSO: Mambilla Power Project: Sunday Dare Slams Atiku Over Unsolicited Economic Advice

“Bayo, repeating the word ‘indictment’ does not make an indictment exist,” Shaibu wrote.

“You are attributing to a commercial arbitration a criminal finding it did not make. Atiku Abubakar was not prosecuted, was not charged and was not convicted by that tribunal.”

Shaibu then challenged Onanuga to identify the exact portion of the tribunal’s award which states that Atiku received the alleged bribe.

“So before lecturing anyone about dogon turenci, answer the simplest question in plain English: where exactly did the tribunal find that Atiku received a $500,000 bribe?” he asked.

He further argued that the tribunal’s observation about the timing of the payment did not amount to a criminal finding against Atiku.

“So, Bayo, this is very simple: produce the sentence in the Mambilla award saying ‘Atiku Abubakar received a $500,000 bribe’,” Shaibu said.

“If you cannot, stop presenting your desperate political conclusion as the tribunal’s finding. A commercial arbitration did not indict Atiku, did not convict Atiku and cannot be transformed into a criminal verdict by repetition.”

Shaibu also compared the Mambilla proceedings with a separate United States forfeiture case involving an account linked to Tinubu.

He said that, unlike the Mambilla arbitration, the US court in that case issued an actual forfeiture order and stated that the funds “represent proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in financial transactions” violating specified US laws.

“There was an actual decree and an actual forfeiture order,” Shaibu said.

The Atiku aide also questioned why the former vice-president should be required to respond to a criminal allegation which, according to him, was not made by the tribunal.

“Produce the sentence in the Mambilla award saying ‘Atiku Abubakar received a $500,000 bribe’,” he reiterated.

The dispute followed the release of details from the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration proceedings in Paris involving Sunrise Power and the Federal Government over the Mambilla project.

Onanuga, however, maintained that the circumstances surrounding the payment raised an integrity question that Atiku should address.

“A politician who aspires to lead Nigeria must be willing to answer questions about his integrity,” Onanuga said in his statement.

“Atiku should respond to the $500,000 bribe directly rather than divert public attention with unsupported allegations against the government.”