EFCC rejects Diezani’s bid to present UK acquittal as evidence

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s request to rely on her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London.

The anti-graft agency made the request in a further counter-affidavit filed in response to Diezani’s application before Justice Inyang Ekwo. The EFCC argued that the UK court’s decision was not relevant to the issues the Nigerian court is expected to determine.

The commission maintained that the London proceedings were separate from the Nigerian case and did not concern the specific asset forfeiture issues before the Federal High Court.

The development follows a July 1 ruling in which Justice Ekwo granted Diezani permission to present evidence of her June 17 acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court.

Diezani is challenging the forfeiture and proposed sale of assets linked to her and has asked the court to consider the UK judgment as a fresh development in her case.

However, in its latest filing dated October 5, the EFCC contended that allowing the UK proceedings to influence the Nigerian case would introduce matters unrelated to the substantive issues before the court.

The commission also argued that the forfeiture order involved jewellery and did not extend to other categories of property allegedly linked to the former minister.

The court has fixed November 11, 2026, for hearing the applications, including the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the substantive suit.

Diezani served as Nigeria’s Minister of Petroleum Resources from 2010 to 2015. She was acquitted by a Southwark Crown Court jury in June 2026 on six bribery charges after a trial in the United Kingdom.

The judge had granted the motion on notice moved by the lawyer who appeared for Diezani, Godwin Iyinbor, after it was not challenged by the EFCC’s counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN.

The UK court had, on June 17, discharged and acquitted the embattled former minister in respect of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her.

Against this development, Diezani, in a suit filed before Justice Ekwo, sought to reclaim her forfeited assets.

In the amended originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, she sued the EFCC as the sole respondent.

On the last adjourned date, Iyinbor had moved a motion seeking the permission to file a further/supplementary affidavit for the purpose of bringing fresh and material development with respect to Diezani’s acquittal by the UK court.

After Oyetibo did not raise objection to filing the application, the judge granted Iyinbor’s prayer.

Meanwhile, after Diezani’s lawyer filed her further/supplementary affidavit, the anti-graft agency responded.

In a further counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, the EFCC opposed Diezani’s request to present the evidence.

When the case was called on Tuesday, Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, who appeared for Diezani, informed the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and their originating motion.

She, however, told the court that the commission had just served them with a motion prior to the commencement of the hearing.

Uwe said the motion was the respondent’s further counter-affidavit to their further/supplementary affidavit.

She equally reminded the court of their motion to regularise their processes.

Responding, Paul Mgbeoma, counsel for the respondent, expressed surprise at which Diezani kept filing processes in the matter as though it was an election petition case.

Mgbeoma then told the court that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.

Justice Ekwo consequently fixed Nov. 11 for the hearing of the motions.

NAN observes that in the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit, dated and filed Oct. 5, Ekienabor averred that some of the depositions in Diezani’s application were misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the substantive issues for determination in her present 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.”

According to the litigation officer, there is nothing in the public sale notice indicating that any of the properties listed therein belong to the applicant (Diezani).

Ekienabor submitted that “the order for forfeiture relates exclusively to items of jewellery and does not extend to any other category of assets or properties.”

He argued that parties are not permitted to expand the scope of a matter before a court.

“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” he said.

He, therefore, prayed the court to discountenance Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit seeking to present evidence of her acquittal in the UK court.

NAN recalls that in the 10-ground argument filed by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, Diezani said she commenced the suit challenging, among other things, the public notice issued by the EFCC for the public auction/sale of properties and/or personal effects affecting her proprietary rights.

“A major plank of the applicant’s case before this honourable court is that the respondent had sought to visit the applicant with grave proprietary consequences without conviction, without fair hearing, and without strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions regulating forfeiture, management and disposal of properties.”

The lawyer said Diezani filed her amended originating motion on Feb. 19, 2025, pursuant to the leave of the court granted on Feb. 17, 2025.

“After the filing of the applicant’s processes and while this suit was still pending before this honourable court, a subsequent and material event occurred, to wit: the applicant was acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, on 17th June, 2026, of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her, a proceeding of obvious material relevance to the allegations repeatedly referenced in relation to the applicant.

“The said subsequent development is material and relevant to the applicant’s case, particularly as it relates to the issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation, and the need for strict compliance with statutory safeguards before disposal of properties affecting the applicant’s proprietary rights.”

He said the ex-minister did not seek by this application to invite the court to sit on appeal over the said foreign decision or to treat it as automatically conclusive of the Nigerian proceedings.

He, however, said it was to place before the court subsequent material facts which would assist the court in doing substantial justice.

According to Ozekhome, the said fact was not available at the time the applicant filed her earlier processes and could not have been pleaded or deposed to earlier.

He submitted that the court had the power and discretion to allow a party to file the application where such facts would assist the court in the just determination of the issues before it.

He said EFCC would not be prejudiced by the grant of the application.

He said it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application. (NAN)

Follow Very Nigerian WhatsApp Channel
For Verified Breaking News, Exclusive Reports, Trending Stories, And Real-time Updates.
CLICk HERE TO JOIN!