The corruption trial of former Nigerian petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, continued at the Southwark Crown Court in London, with the embattled ex-official telling the court she was unfairly blamed for decisions taken at the highest levels of government during Nigeria’s controversial 2012 fuel subsidy crisis.
Testifying under cross-examination on Day 23 of the proceedings, Alison-Madueke said she felt “betrayed” by the manner in which the subsidy removal policy was implemented under former President Goodluck Jonathan. She argued that the abrupt New Year’s Day announcement in 2012 sparked nationwide protests and left her, as petroleum minister, to bear the brunt of public anger.
“I felt betrayed to a certain extent,” she told the court, adding that she was made a “scapegoat” for decisions she did not solely control.
The former minister maintained that the policy had been discussed at various levels of government prior to its implementation, insisting that the sudden rollout exposed her to criticism beyond her authority.
Alison-Madueke also rejected allegations linking her to luxury properties allegedly connected to businessman Ben Peters. She told the court her role was limited to offering interior design advice and did not extend to ownership or control of the properties.
“I was giving advice, not instructions,” she said, disputing claims that she directed refurbishment works or exercised authority over the assets.
She further argued that there was no documentary evidence establishing her ownership of the properties and described suggestions to the contrary as speculative. Addressing claims about a property known as Harbour House, she said she never resided there and may have visited only once.
During the hearing, the former minister challenged the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, questioning the accuracy of testimonies related to payments and property use. She also rejected attempts to identify her through visitor records, insisting she had been wrongly linked.
“You are implying that the black woman is me, and I’m telling you that I’m not the one,” she said in response to one line of questioning.
On allegations of benefiting from luxury goods, Alison-Madueke acknowledged selecting furniture and decorative items but insisted any personal items were paid for. She explained that payments were sometimes handled by third parties initially but later reimbursed, citing Nigeria’s cash-based economy at the time.
“There was always someone to pay at the point of purchase,” she said.
She also addressed claims of financial benefits allegedly channelled through associates to her family, denying any prior knowledge or involvement. The former minister said she was unaware of donations reportedly made to her brother’s church and had no role in its affairs.
“I was not involved in any way,” she told the court.
On claims that associates paid personal expenses, including her son’s school fees in the United Kingdom, Alison-Madueke described such actions as cultural gestures common in Nigerian society.
“We did not ask for it,” she said, maintaining there was no intention to gain undue advantage.
She also defended her use of a private jet during the subsidy crisis, explaining that it was necessitated by the urgency of returning to Nigeria amid escalating unrest.
“We were taken completely by surprise,” she said, adding that she had initially planned to travel on a commercial flight.
Throughout the proceedings, Alison-Madueke repeatedly said she could not recall specific details of transactions and communications from over a decade ago, attributing the gaps to the passage of time.
“Madam Prosecutor, I cannot possibly answer that question in 2026, after all these years,” she remarked during one exchange.
The prosecution, however, maintains that the pattern of financial transactions, communications, and asset movements points to a broader scheme in which the former minister allegedly benefited from assets held in the names of others.
The trial is expected to continue with further cross-examination as the court weighs the competing claims.
