Diezani’s lawyer questions UK prosecution over alleged missing evidence ahead of jury verdict

THE trial of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Ms Diezani Alison-Madueke, has entered its final stage at the Southwark Crown Court in the United Kingdom after both the defence and the prosecution concluded their arguments before the jury.

Alison-Madueke is being tried alongside Olatimbo Ayinde, an oil executive, and Doye Agama, her brother, over a 5-count charge related to alleged bribery offences. The three defendants have all denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them.

UK prosecutors had alleged that the former minister received luxury items and high-value properties from oil industry figures seeking favourable treatment in relation to oil contracts during her time in office between 2010 and 2015.

According to the prosecution, some businessmen allegedly financed Alison-Madueke’s lavish lifestyle because they expected preferential access to lucrative oil deals and government contracts under her supervision as petroleum minister.

READ ALSO: Key witness’ testimony raises doubts in Alison-Madueke UK bribery case

However, the former minister and her legal team have consistently rejected the allegations, insisting there is no credible evidence proving bribery or abuse of office.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, counsel to Alison-Madueke, Jonathan Laidlaw, delivered his closing submission and sharply criticised the UK prosecutors over what he described as major gaps in the case against his client.

Citing reports by THISDAY, Laidlaw argued that prosecutors failed to charge the businessmen alleged to have offered the bribes, while focusing solely on the former minister.

“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.

The defence counsel also questioned the handling of evidence obtained during a 2015 raid on Alison-Madueke’s Abuja residence. He told the court that officials of the UK National Crime Agency were not physically present during the operation and argued that items allegedly recovered were not photographed in their original positions.

Mr Laidlaw further claimed that the National Crime Agency does not possess the original materials currently being relied upon as evidence in court.

He also alleged that several documents that could potentially support the defence had gone missing, including records connected to reimbursements and official documentation relating to Alison-Madueke’s responsibilities as minister.

The defence challenged the prosecution’s assertion that records of official movements and disbursement approvals linked to the former minister no longer exist.

READ ALSO: Police, court exonerate businessman Austin Ugochukwu Albert of false fraud claims in $667,000 case

Mr Laidlaw additionally criticised the prosecution for relying heavily on evidence produced by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) while simultaneously dismissing the anti-graft body’s correspondence submitted in support of co-defendant Ayinde as unreliable.

In response, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy maintained that the prosecution had established a clear pattern of improper benefits allegedly received by Alison-Madueke from oil executives whose companies later benefited from state-backed oil contracts.

Healy told the jury that it was inappropriate for a serving public official to have private individuals with business interests before the Nigerian government paying for aspects of her lifestyle.

The prosecutor also rejected the defence’s claim that certain benefits had been reimbursed in Nigeria, arguing that no documentary proof of reimbursement had been presented before the court. He added that the reimbursement explanation did not feature in earlier police interviews conducted during the investigation.

According to the prosecution, Alison-Madueke had been aware of the criminal investigation for nearly a decade.

The prosecution further referenced a £1 million payment allegedly linked to businessman Benedict Peters, describing the arrangement involving intermediary structures as an ‘extraordinary device’ allegedly intended to disguise the nature of the transaction.

With closing submissions now completed, the jury is expected to deliver its verdict later this week.