Diezani’s Counsel Faults UK Prosecutors over ‘Missing Evidence’ as Jury Set for Final Verdict

The defence and prosecution have closed their case in the ongoing trial of Diezani Alison-Madueke, former minister of petroleum resources in Nigeria, at the Southwark Crown Court in the United Kingdom.

The ex-minister is standing trial alongside Olatimbo Ayinde, an oil executive; and Doye Agama, her brother; on a five-count charge bordering on accepting bribes.

They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges.

British prosecutors had accused Alison-Madueke of accepting bribes in the form of luxury goods from industry figures.

The prosecutors had said Alison-Madueke was given high-end properties by people who believed that she would use her influence to favour them in oil contracts.

The former minister and her counsel had denied all the allegations.

Alison-Madueke was minister of petroleum resources from 2010 to 2015.

THE CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

During proceedings on Tuesday, Jonathan Laidlaw, the defendant’s counsel, rendered his closing arguments.

According to THISDAY, Laidlaw accused UK prosecutors of failing to prosecute the alleged bribe givers, relying on questionable evidence, and inability to provide some evidence necessary for the case.

The lead counsel argued that while Alison-Madueke was charged, the wealthy oil businessmen alleged to have paid bribes to her were never charged.

“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 by THISDAY.

Laidlaw said officials of the UK’s National Crime Agency were absent during the raid on the Abuja residence of the former minister in October 2015.

The counsel said none of the items allegedly recovered during the operation were photographed in their original locations, adding that NCA does not even possess the original materials now being relied upon in court.

He alleged that key documents capable of supporting Alison-Madueke’s defence had disappeared, including records relating to reimbursements and official documentation connected to her ministerial duties.

The counsel faulted the prosecution’s claim that records showing the official movements of the former minister and fund disbursements do not exist.

Laidlaw faulted why the prosecution relied heavily on the evidence generated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), while rejecting the agency’s correspondence tendered in support of co-defendant — Ayinde — as unreliable.

In his closing submission, Alexandra Healy, the lead prosecutor, reiterated allegations that some oil executives provided improper benefits to Alison-Madueke while their companies benefited from lucrative state contracts during her tenure as petroleum minister.

Healy told the jury that it was improper for a sitting minister to have her lifestyle funded by individuals doing business with the Nigerian state.

Healy disagreed with the defence’s argument that all benefits were reimbursed in Nigeria, adding that no documentary evidence of reimbursement has been produced and no such claim has been raised in earlier police interviews.

The prosecutor said the ex-federal minister was aware of the investigation for nearly a decade.

The prosecution mentioned a £1 million payment linked to Benedict Peters, a businessman, describing the use of intermediary structures as an “extraordinary device” designed to conceal the true nature of the transaction.

The jury is set to deliver its verdict later this week.