Former Nigerian Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke maintained during extended cross-
examination at Southwark Crown Court in London that she neither controlled nor personally
directed the series of luxury purchases and financial transactions that prosecutors presented as
central to their case against her, insisting that associates acted independently in ways she could
not be held responsible for and that the prosecution was drawing unwarranted inferences from
third-party actions.
Proceedings focused on alleged high-value spending patterns in 2013, with prosecutors
presenting emails, travel records, invoices, text messages, and Harrods transaction documents
as part of a case linking the former minister to luxury goods and property-related purchases
coordinated by individuals in her circle.
During questioning about events in July 2013, including travel movements, communications,
and shopping records involving designer items, watches, furniture, and household fittings,
Diezani consistently maintained that she did not exercise control over the financial activities of
key associates, including Kolawole Aluko, whom she described as playing an advisory role
rather than acting under her direction.
When confronted with Harrods invoices and personal shopping records said to include watches,
handbags, candles, luxury clothing, and furniture items purchased in early July 2013, she
repeatedly stated that she either had no knowledge of the transactions or could not recall them.
Asked specifically whether she had received original luxury watches allegedly purchased on her
behalf, she denied it categorically, though she acknowledged owning a Rolex when questioned
separately. On multiple Harrods transactions dated between July 4 and 6, 2013, she told the
court she could not confirm whether the purchases were intended for her, stating she had no
idea whether Aluko was shopping on her behalf at those times.
When shown invoices and photographs linked to property-related items including floor lamps,
wall lights, and decorative furniture purchased during the same period, she said she could not
clearly remember the context and suggested that where design input was required, she
sometimes offered general observations based on her architectural background.
The prosecution relied on messages and communications exchanged during the period,
including texts relating to meetings, deliveries, and coordination with Harrods and other
vendors, presenting them as evidence that she was actively engaged in directing procurement
activity. Diezani disputed this interpretation, saying the communications should not be read as
evidence of direct involvement in financial decisions.
She addressed the role of facilitators described in the proceedings, including individuals alleged
to have processed payments using cards later reimbursed through separate arrangements,
saying she was aware that aides and facilitators sometimes performed logistical and
administrative support roles but insisting she did not manage or direct their financial
transactions.
She maintained at several points during cross-examination that she could not remember the
context of certain communications or purchases, and cautioned firmly against interpreting
memory gaps as confirmation of involvement. She argued that the prosecution’s case relied
heavily on inference from third-party actions rather than direct evidence linking her to personal
benefit or deliberate control of funds.
Further cross-examination is expected as both sides continue testing the meaning and reliability
of documentary evidence, financial records, and witness statements before the court. The trial
continues.
