PARIS ARBITRATION: Council exposes Dele Alake’s “falsehoods, innuendos, and manufactured judgment” against Atiku

MAIN POINT: “APC should prepare its handover note as allegations against Atiku would not change the political situation”

By OUR REPORTER

The council further rejected what it described as attempts by Alake to present the Paris proceedings as a judgment against Atiku. “Mr. Dele Alake is not a judge of the ICC, not a judge in France, not a judge in Nigeria. He cannot sit in Abuja and manufacture a judgment of the Paris Court,” the statement said.

The Atiku Abubakar Presidential Election Integrity Council has rejected claims by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) linking former Vice President Atiku Abubakar to alleged corruption arising from the Paris arbitration over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

The council, in a statement signed on September 18, 2026, described a recent statement by the APC Campaign Council spokesman, Dele Alake, as containing “falsehoods, innuendos, and manufactured judgment.”

It maintained that the Paris arbitration was a commercial dispute between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited over the Mambilla project and that Atiku was not a party to the proceedings.

According to the council, “Atiku Abubakar was NEVER joined as a party, NEVER charged, NEVER tried, and NEVER indicted by the Tribunal.”

It argued that an arbitration tribunal is not a criminal court and therefore could not indict or convict Atiku for bribery or corruption.

The council also dismissed claims that the tribunal found Atiku criminally liable, saying references to payment timelines in the proceedings were allegations by a claimant rather than findings of guilt against the former vice president.

On the reported $500,000 transaction, the council described the allegation as a “recycled falsehood” originating from a 2010 US Senate report on politically exposed persons.

It claimed that the report found no evidence of corruption against Atiku and that no action was taken against him by US authorities, adding that the transaction in question had been explained as a legitimate foreign exchange transaction.

The council further rejected what it described as attempts by Alake to present the Paris proceedings as a judgment against Atiku.

“Mr. Dele Alake is not a judge of the ICC, not a judge in France, not a judge in Nigeria. He cannot sit in Abuja and manufacture a judgment of the Paris Court,” the statement said.

It also referred to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s testimony in Paris, arguing that Obasanjo did not accuse Atiku of taking a bribe to award the Mambilla contract.

The council said Obasanjo’s testimony concerned the Federal Executive Council’s decision not to approve the Build-Operate-Transfer arrangement, stressing that such a decision was collective rather than Atiku’s personal decision.

It further stated that Atiku had been investigated by the EFCC, ICPC and US Senate but had never been indicted, charged or convicted of corruption by any court in Nigeria, the United States, France or elsewhere.

The council urged Nigerians to disregard what it called “puerile propaganda,” saying Atiku remained focused on “rescuing Nigeria, unifying the country, and restoring economic prosperity.”

It concluded by telling the APC to “prepare its handover note,” insisting that allegations against Atiku would not change the political situation.

In the meantime, the statement credited to the APC/PCC’s spokesman, Deke Alake, has been described as yet another attempt by the Tinubu’s Administration – reopening even cases his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, did not touch – ostensibly to incapacitate the only formidable opposition capable of making the president’s return to office in 2027 impossible.

The reopened issue of Manbilla contract case by Tinubu government has required our reporters to flashback at the core of information available as detailed in the report below, which shows nothing that connects Atiku with any of the bribery and corruption, but strictly a matter between the then sitting president, Olusegun Obasanjo, the FEC, and the then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye and the Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited:

EFCC Evidence: Obasanjo, FEC Did Not Approve Agunloye’s Mambilla Contract Award – Media Report

Evidence presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power and Steel Development, Olu Agunloye, indicates that former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the Federal Executive Council (FEC) did not approve the 2003 award of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.

An EFCC investigator and the third prosecution witness, Umar Babangida, told the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Apo, on June 16, 2025, that Obasanjo did not authorise Agunloye to award the project to Sunrise Power.

Babangida said Obasanjo had directed Agunloye to submit his memorandum on the project to the FEC for deliberation, but did not personally approve the award.

According to the witness, Obasanjo subsequently told investigators that the FEC had directed Agunloye to withdraw his memorandum and open the project to other investors.

The witness said Agunloye nevertheless issued a letter on May 22, 2003, awarding the contract to Sunrise Power, allegedly without presidential or FEC approval.

Babangida further testified that Obasanjo had confirmed the position in a written statement and during a meeting with the EFCC investigation team in February 2024.

The former minister is facing a seven-count charge brought by the EFCC over the alleged fraudulent award of the $6 billion Mambilla project and alleged official corruption.

The EFCC investigator also told the court that investigators reviewing Agunloye’s financial records discovered payments allegedly made to him by Shotire Jide Abiodun, whom the witness linked to Sunrise Power.

The testimony forms part of the prosecution’s case against Agunloye and does not, by itself, constitute a final judicial determination of the allegations against him.