In a significant development in the ongoing $2.5 billion Mambilla power project dispute, former Nigerian Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari have testified before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris. The arbitration case centers on allegations of breach of contract by the Nigerian government against Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited concerning the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State.
Olusegun Obasanjo, the former president in office when the contract was initially awarded in 2003, clarified his administration’s role in the project. Obasanjo denied approving the $6 billion contract, stating that no minister under his tenure had the authority to commit Nigeria to such a financial obligation without presidential consent. He emphasized that the former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, acted beyond his authority in awarding the contract—a claim he has consistently made, highlighting the need for a commission of inquiry to investigate the matter.
Muhammadu Buhari, who succeeded Obasanjo, testified regarding his administration’s actions concerning the project. He clarified that he did not authorize the 2020 settlement agreement with Sunrise Power. Buhari has been vocal about his administration’s decision to directly contract Sinohydro Corporation Limited for the project, bypassing Sunrise Power, which led to the current arbitration. His testimony aimed at defending Nigeria’s position on not breaching contractual terms but attempting to rectify what he viewed as previous mismanagement.
The Mambilla project, intended to be Nigeria’s largest power plant, has been mired in controversy since its inception. The dispute arose when Sunrise Power, claiming to be the rightful contractor, accused the Nigerian government of failing to honor the Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) agreement. The company seeks $2.3 billion in compensation for what it describes as a breach of contract.
The testimonies of both former presidents come at a crucial juncture. Obasanjo’s appearance in court was to counter what he described as ‘atrocious’ claims by Agunloye about the contract’s legitimacy. Buhari’s testimony was to underline his administration’s commitment to due process and transparency in handling the project’s subsequent developments.
The Nigerian government has also accused Sunrise of attempting to bribe public officials, including ministers from Buhari’s administration, to secure favorable outcomes in the dispute. These allegations have added layers of complexity to the case, with the Nigerian government arguing fraud and corruption in both the contract’s award and subsequent negotiations.
The testimonies have stirred public and legal discourse within Nigeria. There’s a divide in public opinion regarding the accountability of past administrations and the integrity of the project’s management. On one hand, supporters of both former presidents laud their willingness to testify, interpreting it as an act of patriotism and transparency. Critics, however, see it as a belated effort to clear names rather than resolve the project’s implementation issues.
This arbitration could have profound implications for Nigeria, not just financially but also in terms of how future contracts are negotiated and managed. A ruling in favor of Sunrise could see Nigeria paying hefty damages, while a decision supporting Nigeria might set a precedent for handling such disputes.
As the ICC continues to hear testimonies and arguments, the world watches closely, as do Nigerians, eager for a resolution that might finally move the Mambilla project from dispute to development. This case underscores the challenges of megaprojects in Nigeria, where political, legal, and economic interests often clash, leaving infrastructure dreams in limbo.