• Questions missing evidence, attacks EFCC credibility, asks why alleged bribe-givers remain free
Wale Igbintade
The trial of former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, took a dramatic turn at the Southwark Crown Court in London yesterday as her lead counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw, KC, launched a sweeping attack on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Laidlaw accused investigators of relying on questionable evidence, engaging in selective prosecution, and failing to preserve critical materials that could have supported the former minister’s defence.
The proceedings marked the beginning of the defence’s closing submissions in a trial that had drawn global attention and remained one of the most closely watched corruption cases involving a former Nigerian public official.
Addressing the jury, Laidlaw painted a picture of what he described as a fundamentally unfair prosecution, questioning why several wealthy oil businessmen alleged to have paid bribes were never charged, while Alison-Madueke had spent years battling criminal allegations in the United Kingdom.
The senior defence lawyer specifically named businessmen Kola Aluko, Jide Omokore, Benedict Peters, Igho Sanomi, and Kevin Okyere, arguing that despite being identified by prosecutors as central figures in the alleged bribery arrangements, they continue to live freely without prosecution.
“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 told the jury.
His remarks appeared to be aimed at reinforcing the defence’s longstanding argument that the prosecution had unfairly isolated Alison-Madueke while declining to pursue those allegedly responsible for making the payments at the centre of the case.
The defence also mounted a frontal challenge against the handling of evidence by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), raising concerns over the integrity and reliability of materials relied upon by prosecutors.
Laidlaw informed the court that officers of the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency were absent when Alison-Madueke’s Abuja residence was searched in October 2015, adding that none of the items allegedly recovered during the operation were photographed in their original locations.
According to him, NCA does not even possess the original materials now being relied upon in court.
He further alleged that crucial documents capable of supporting Alison-Madueke’s defence had disappeared, including records relating to reimbursements and official documentation connected to her ministerial duties.
“If the position were not so serious, it would be laughable,” Laidlaw said while criticising the evidential gaps.
In one of the most pointed moments of the proceedings, the defence accused prosecutors of taking contradictory positions regarding the credibility of EFCC.
Laidlaw argued that the prosecution was willing to rely heavily on EFCC-generated evidence against Alison-Madueke, while simultaneously dismissing EFCC correspondence tendered in support of co-defendant Olatimbo Ayinde as unreliable.
“Either you trust the EFCC, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways,” he said.
The defence also disputed prosecution claims concerning ministerial records and diaries.
Laidlaw dismissed as “arrant nonsense” testimony suggesting that no ministerial diaries existed, insisting that such records would have demonstrated Alison-Madueke’s official movements and provided evidence of reimbursements relevant to several allegations before the court.
Observers in court noticed that the defence strategy appeared carefully structured to raise doubts about the consistency, preservation, and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence before the case is handed to the jury for deliberations later this week.
Earlier in the day, lead prosecutor, Alexandra Healy, KC, concluded the prosecution’s closing submissions by revisiting allegations involving several Nigerian oil executives and associates linked to the former minister.
On Count 3, concerning an alleged conspiracy involving Alison-Madueke and her brother, the prosecution focused on a £1 million payment allegedly made by businessman Benedict Peters shortly after a mortgage linked to a London property was cleared.
Healy argued that the funds were channelled through a defunct furniture company instead of being paid directly to Agama’s church, describing the arrangement as an “extraordinary device” allegedly designed to disguise the payment.
The prosecution also maintained allegations that certain oil executives provided improper benefits to Alison-Madueke while their companies benefited from lucrative state contracts during her tenure as petroleum minister.
On the charges involving Ayinde, prosecutors rejected her whistle-blower defence, arguing that her demand for reimbursement only emerged after she allegedly failed to secure the reinstatement of Prince Momoh at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
Despite the prosecution’s allegations, much of the courtroom attention shifted to the defence’s forceful challenge to the integrity of the investigation itself, particularly the handling of evidence originating from Nigeria.
The trial continues with Laidlaw’s closing speech before the jury retires to consider its verdict.
