The company argued that Nigeria breached its agreement by proceeding with another arrangement involving a Chinese consortium for the project.
Nigeria has won a major arbitration dispute against a firm, Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited over the controversial Mambilla Hydropower Project, with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris ruling in favour of the Federal Government.
The decision, issued on Thursday, September 17, 2026, followed years of arbitration over Sunrise Power's claim for about $2.35 billion in damages arising from a disputed 2003 agreement for the construction of the Mambilla hydropower project in Taraba State.
The ruling represents a major development in a long-running legal dispute that has involved former Nigerian presidents, ministers, government officials and a separate criminal prosecution of former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye.
Details of the tribunal's full reasoning and the precise orders contained in the award were not immediately available as of the time of filing this report.
Sunrise Power had commenced arbitration against Nigeria at the ICC in October 2017, seeking $2.354 billion over what it described as a breach of the agreement to construct the 3,050-megawatt Mambilla project under a build-operate-transfer arrangement.
The company argued that Nigeria breached its agreement by proceeding with another arrangement involving a Chinese consortium for the project.
The dispute subsequently became more complicated after the Federal Government entered into a settlement agreement with Sunrise Power in January 2020.
Under the reported terms of that agreement, the government was to pay Sunrise Power $200 million within 14 days, with a 10 percent penalty in the event of default, while the company was to return as the local content partner for the Mambilla project.
The settlement was not implemented as envisaged, leading to further legal action and additional claims by Sunrise Power.
In 2021, the company filed a fresh $400 million claim at the ICC over the Federal Government's failure to fulfil the settlement terms.
The arbitration proceedings later attracted renewed attention after former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari became involved as factual witnesses.
How the Mambilla dispute began
The dispute dates back to 2003 when Sunrise Power was awarded a contract connected to the Mambilla hydropower project.
The original project was envisaged as a major 3,050MW hydroelectric facility in Taraba State.
However, the validity of the contract award itself later became a subject of controversy.
Former President Obasanjo subsequently said he had not authorised the award of the contract to Sunrise Power.
In 2023, Obasanjo said that no minister had the authority to commit his government to a project worth billions of dollars without presidential approval, saying he had not given such approval.
The issue also became the subject of criminal proceedings against Agunloye, who was the minister responsible for power and steel when the contract was awarded.
In June 2025, an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigator told a Federal Capital Territory High Court that Obasanjo had confirmed he did not approve the contract award.
The EFCC has accused Agunloye of awarding the contract without the required approvals and has also alleged that he received payments linked to Sunrise Power. Agunloye has pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations.
The international arbitration hearings in Paris attracted unprecedented testimony from former Nigerian leaders.
In January 2025, Obasanjo testified before the tribunal, followed by Buhari.
Former Minister of Power, Babatunde Fashola, and former Minister of Water Resources, Suleiman Adamu, also appeared as factual witnesses for Nigeria.
According to reporting on the proceedings, Nigeria's witnesses challenged the validity of the original contract and the subsequent 2020 settlement agreement.
Several witnesses listed by Sunrise Power, including Agunloye, did not appear to adopt their witness statements during the factual-witness hearings.
The arbitration proceedings were conducted confidentially, limiting the amount of evidence and arguments that could be publicly reported during the hearings.
Comments
Post a Comment