Mambilla Arbitration: Nigeria Wins $400m Dispute as ICC Tribunal Rejects Sunrise Power’s Claim
An ICC tribunal in Paris has rejected Sunrise Power’s claim arising from a disputed Mambilla settlement, finding that the agreements lacked the required government authority and could not bind Nigeria, while also making adverse findings about the circumstances surrounding the deal.
Nigeria Wins the Arbitration
Nigeria has prevailed in a long-running international arbitration arising from the disputed Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, after an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal in Paris rejected claims by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.
The dispute centred on a 2020 settlement under which Nigeria had agreed to pay Sunrise Power $200 million, followed by an addendum that could have increased the government’s exposure by another $200 million, plus interest. Sunrise ultimately pursued claims running into billions of dollars over the wider Mambilla project. The tribunal rejected the $400 million claim connected to the settlement and ordered Sunrise and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for substantial legal and arbitration costs.
The Authority Behind the Agreement
One of the most significant legal issues was whether the officials who negotiated and signed the settlement agreements had the authority to bind the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The tribunal found that the agreements lacked the required presidential approval and were therefore not binding on the Federal Government. It also found the settlement arrangements unenforceable on grounds including Nigerian public policy.
The award has also generated controversy over former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami’s role in the settlement negotiations. Reporting on the tribunal’s findings says it concluded that a corrupt arrangement was reached involving Malami and Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya. Malami has rejected that characterisation, arguing that the arbitration was a commercial proceeding rather than a criminal trial and that the award should not be presented as a criminal conviction against him.
More Than a Commercial Dispute
For Nigeria, the ruling carries a broader legal lesson about government contracts and international arbitration.
The case demonstrates that a commercial agreement involving the Federal Government is not necessarily enforceable simply because officials signed it. Questions of statutory authority, required approvals and public policy can determine whether Nigeria is legally bound.
It also highlights the importance of distinguishing an arbitral tribunal’s findings from criminal proceedings. The tribunal’s conclusions may have serious legal and institutional implications, but any separate criminal liability would require the appropriate legal process.
For the Mambilla project itself, the arbitration removes a major legal obstacle that had surrounded the project for years. What happens next may determine whether the long-delayed hydropower project can finally move beyond litigation and towards implementation.
Was this story helpful?
Responses (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.