The Denial That Skipped the Question
Atiku Abubakar says a Paris tribunal did not indict him, and on the reported text he is right. But the tribunal asked something narrower: what was the $500,000 for? His statement answers the APC. It does not answer that.
There are two ways to answer an accusation. You can say what you did not do. Or you can say what happened.
On Friday 18 September, Atiku Abubakar’s camp did the first. On 19 September Premium Times pointed out that it had not done the second, under a headline saying he had failed to address the tribunal’s concerns over the payment.
This is the follow-up to our file on the $500,000 transfer: the money a businessman named Leno Adesanya wired in January 2003 to the American account of Jennifer Douglas, then Atiku’s wife, while his company was pursuing the Mambilla power project. As before, we have not seen the award. We rely on Premium Times, TheCable and Leadership, and we say which.
What he said
The statement came from Phrank Shaibu, his senior special assistant on public communication, after the APC Presidential Campaign Council called on Atiku to leave the 2027 race.
“A commercial arbitration did not indict Atiku, did not convict Atiku…”Phrank Shaibu, for Atiku Abubakar, 18 September 2026 · reported by Premium Times
- Show the paragraphHe challenged the APC to produce the part of the award that finds Atiku took a bribe, abused his office, influenced the contract or joined a corrupt conspiracy.
- No liabilityAtiku was not a party to the case, and the tribunal imposed no damages or costs on him, according to Leadership’s account of the statement.
- Considering is not findingThat the tribunal looked at the payment, he argued, is not a finding that the payment was a bribe.
On the text as three newspapers report it, every one of those points stands. The tribunal said there was no evidence on its record that Atiku used his office to help Sunrise win the contract. No court has charged him over this payment. Denied
What he did not say
The tribunal’s difficulty was never with Atiku’s conduct in office. It was with the only explanation anyone has offered for the money, which is an explanation about Atiku: that Mr Adesanya was changing naira into dollars for him.
Premium Times lists what the tribunal found missing, and what the statement leaves untouched.
- Was it his money?The statement does not say whether Atiku asked for dollars, paid naira for them, or knew of the transfer at all.
- The paperNo record of the naira payment, the exchange rate, or any instruction from Atiku or his aides was produced in Paris. The statement offers none.
- The witnessesNeither Atiku nor Ms Douglas gave the tribunal a statement supporting the account. The reply does not say why, beyond noting that he was never summoned.
He is under no legal duty to. He was not a party in Paris and no court is asking. It is a political question, put to a man who wants to be president, about half a million dollars that reached his household while he was Vice President. The tribunal called the circumstances “significant red flags,” and said it could not exclude a link to his role on the project. Unresolved
The counter-punch
Most of the statement went the other way. Mr Shaibu contrasted Mambilla with a United States case involving an account associated with President Bola Tinubu, citing what he described as an actual forfeiture decree, and said the President’s lawyers had fought in Washington to keep FBI and DEA records withheld. He added that Atiku never once went to court to have evidence hidden.
Those are his characterisations, as Premium Times reports them. The presidency’s position, which we have recorded before, is that no U.S. court has convicted Mr Tinubu of any crime. Whatever the merits, it is an answer about another man. Alleged
The other payments
The award looked at more than one transfer. Premium Times reports that the tribunal also examined three payments totalling about $15,000 that Mr Adesanya made in 2019, through an aide, to Olu Agunloye, the minister who signed the disputed Mambilla letter in May 2003. By 2019 the contract was already in litigation. Its earlier report said Sunrise and Mr Adesanya did not deny the payments.
What the tribunal concluded about them is not set out in the reporting we reviewed, so we draw no conclusion either.
What the record does not show
- A finding against himNo finding that Atiku Abubakar took a bribe, and no evidence on the tribunal’s record that he used his office for Sunrise.
- His knowledgeNothing reported shows that he directed the transfer or knew of it when it was made.
- Her accountNo comment from Jennifer Douglas appears in the reporting we reviewed. She has denied wrongdoing over her U.S. accounts and was never charged.
- The full statementWe have read the statement as quoted by Premium Times and Leadership, not the complete text.
- The awardIt has not been published in full.
One sentence would close this: whose money it was, and what it bought. It can come from Atiku Abubakar, from Jennifer Douglas, or from a bank record.
Sources
- Premium Times, “Atiku denies corruption verdict, but fails to address ICC tribunal’s concerns over $500,000 payment,” 19 September 2026 · premiumtimesng.com · Premium Times on X
- Premium Times, “$500,000 payment to Atiku’s ex-wife raises ‘significant red flags’ in Mambilla dispute – ICC tribunal,” 18 September 2026 · premiumtimesng.com
- Leadership, “Mambilla: APC, Atiku Clash Over $500,000 Payment, ICC Award,” 19 September 2026 · leadership.ng
- TheCable, “REVEALED: Sunrise promoter transferred $500,000 to Atiku’s wife during Mambilla negotiations in 2003,” 18 September 2026 · thecable.ng
This article reports on, and credits, journalism by Premium Times, Leadership and TheCable. The Nigeria Files has not reviewed the ICC award or the full text of Mr Shaibu’s statement. The tribunal made no finding that Atiku Abubakar received a bribe; he was not a party to the arbitration and denies the APC’s allegations. Nothing here suggests that Olu Agunloye or Jennifer Douglas has been found to have done anything unlawful. Statements about President Tinubu are Mr Shaibu’s. Statuses are editorial labels, not legal findings. Corrections and documented responses will be published.