-
Nicolas Adekeye / 1 month
- 0
- 2 min read
Nigeria’s defense in the long-standing legal battle over the $6 billion Mambilla Power Project has been dealt a significant blow after former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari gave conflicting testimonies before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in Paris. The contradictory accounts have raised serious questions about Nigeria’s defense strategy, potentially jeopardizing the country’s chances of avoiding a hefty $2.3 billion compensation claim by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company. Agunloye Obasanjo testified on January 22, 2025, dismissing the legitimacy of the 2003 contract, arguing that it was illegally signed by the then Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, despite the Federal Executive Council (FEC) rejecting it. “The agreement relied on by Sunrise Power was never valid. A minister cannot single-handedly approve a contract after the Federal Executive Council had rejected it,” Obasanjo declared. Malami & Fashola However, Buhari’s testimony on January 23, 2025, provided a starkly different narrative, admitting that his administration had recognized and engaged with Sunrise Power over the contract. “I directed the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the Minister of Works and Power, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), to negotiate with Sunrise Power,” he stated. Buhari’s admission has inadvertently strengthened Sunrise Power’s claim, suggesting that successive administrations recognized the contract, even if it was initially disputed. The contradictory testimonies have put Nigeria’s legal team in a difficult position. If Buhari’s admission is considered valid, it could be interpreted as an official acknowledgment of the contract’s legitimacy, making it harder for Nigeria to argue against paying the $2.3 billion compensation. With the case nearing its final stages at the ICC, legal experts believe Nigeria faces an uphill battle in proving its innocence.