The trial of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has reached its final stage after both prosecution and defence formally closed their cases at the Southwark Crown Court.
Alison-Madueke is being tried alongside oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde and her brother, Doye Agama, on five counts of alleged bribery. All defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors allege that during her tenure as petroleum minister from 2010 to 2015, Alison-Madueke received luxury items and other benefits from oil sector players who were seeking favourable treatment in securing government contracts. They claim the benefits included high-value properties and other inducements linked to access and influence.
The former minister has consistently denied the allegations.
Defence closes case, questions prosecution evidence
During the final hearing on Tuesday, defence counsel Jonathan Laidlaw delivered closing arguments challenging the strength and handling of the prosecution’s case.
According to reports from THISDAY, Laidlaw criticised what he described as a selective approach by UK authorities, arguing that alleged bribe givers were not prosecuted while his client faced trial alone.
“One can be forgiven whether parliament, in its wisdom, when enacting the Bribery Act, could have contemplated this absurd situation where the people who are alleged to have paid the bribes are free, while the accused has been held prisoner for 11 years,” Laidlaw was quoted as saying.
He also raised concerns about evidence handling, claiming that officials of the National Crime Agency were not present during a 2015 raid on Alison-Madueke’s Abuja residence, and that items allegedly recovered were not properly documented in their original locations.
Laidlaw further argued that key documents supporting the defence, including records tied to reimbursements and official financial transactions, were missing, weakening the prosecution’s narrative.
He also questioned the prosecution’s claim that no official records existed relating to the former minister’s movements and disbursements during her time in office.
The defence additionally accused prosecutors of relying heavily on evidence from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission while discounting certain supporting materials submitted in favour of co-defendant Ayinde.
Prosecution maintains bribery allegations
On the other hand, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy insisted that evidence showed the defendants received improper benefits from oil industry figures who were simultaneously awarded lucrative Nigerian oil contracts.
She argued that it was unacceptable for a sitting minister to have her lifestyle financed by individuals doing business with the Nigerian state.
The prosecution rejected claims that any of the benefits were reimbursed, stating that no documentary evidence had been presented to support such assertions during the trial or earlier interviews.
Healy also referenced an alleged £1 million payment linked to businessman Benedict Peters, describing the arrangement as an “extraordinary device” allegedly used to conceal the origin of funds.
Verdict pending
With both sides now done presenting their arguments, the jury is expected to deliver its verdict later this week, bringing the long-running case closer to resolution.
