The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject evidence of former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke’s acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London.
The commission made the request in a further counter-affidavit filed in response to Diezani’s application seeking to place the June 17, 2026, UK judgment before the Nigerian court.
Justice Inyang Ekwo had earlier granted Diezani leave to file a further or supplementary affidavit after her counsel, Godwin Iyinbor, informed the court of the development in the United Kingdom.
The EFCC had not opposed the application when it was initially argued, prompting the judge to grant the request.
But after the supplementary affidavit was filed, the commission responded with a further counter-affidavit, asking the court to discountenance the new evidence.
The anti-graft agency argued that the proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court were unrelated to the issues before Justice Ekwo.
In the affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in the law firm of the EFCC’s counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, the commission maintained that Diezani’s acquittal by the UK court had no bearing on the substantive suit.
“The proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, and the purported acquittal of the applicant therein, are in respect of a proceeding that is not being prosecuted before any Nigerian court and have nothing to do with the substantive suit before this honourable court,” he stated.
The EFCC further contended that the public sale notice being challenged by Diezani did not indicate that any of the properties listed belonged to her.
It also maintained that the forfeiture order involved only items of jewellery and did not extend to other assets or properties.
The commission consequently accused Diezani of attempting to broaden the scope of the case by introducing facts it described as irrelevant.
It urged the court to disregard the supplementary affidavit and refuse the application seeking to rely on the UK acquittal.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Diezani’s counsel, Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, told the court that the case had been fixed for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the originating motion.
She, however, informed the court that the commission had served them with a fresh process shortly before the proceedings commenced.
According to her, the document was the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit in opposition to their supplementary affidavit.
Uwe also reminded the court of Diezani’s application seeking to regularise her processes.
Responding, counsel for the EFCC, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at what he described as the continued filing of processes by the former minister, likening the situation to the procedure often seen in election petition cases.
He nevertheless told the court that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the case until November 11 for the hearing of the pending motions.
Diezani’s suit followed an EFCC notice concerning the proposed public auction or sale of properties and personal effects which she claimed affected her proprietary rights.
In a 10-ground argument filed by her counsel, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, the former minister argued that the UK acquittal was a subsequent development with material relevance to her case.
Ozekhome said Diezani had filed her amended originating motion on February 19, 2025, after obtaining the court’s permission two days earlier.
He noted that the UK court’s decision acquitting her of bribery allegations came while the Nigerian case was still pending.
According to him, the development was relevant to issues raised in the suit, including the absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process and compliance with statutory safeguards before the permanent deprivation or disposal of property.
The senior lawyer stressed that Diezani was not asking the Nigerian court to review or sit on appeal over the decision of the UK court.
Rather, he said, she merely wanted the court to consider the acquittal as a subsequent material fact that could assist it in reaching a just determination of the case.
Ozekhome argued that the fact of the acquittal was unavailable when the earlier court processes were filed and could not have been included at the time.
He also maintained that admitting the evidence would not prejudice the EFCC and urged the court to allow the application in the interest of justice.
Leave a Reply