The trial of former Nigerian Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke entered its 21st day at Southwark Crown Court in London, with the defence mounting a detailed challenge to prosecution claims that she owned an array of luxury assets and improperly received financial benefits, while the former minister offered emotionally charged testimony about political persecution, personal illness, and the toll of a decade-long legal ordeal.
At the centre of proceedings was a document prepared by the defence that it described as a more accurate inventory of items linked to the former minister, contrasting sharply with the prosecution’s version and drawing clear distinctions between what Alison-Madueke personally owned and what was acquired by associates or on behalf of third parties.
Under examination, she acknowledged ownership of personal clothing, accessories, and effects but firmly denied ownership of several high-value items including expensive furniture and luxury goods. She maintained that many of the costlier items featured in the prosecution’s case were purchased by associates including Benedict Peters, Kola Aluko, and Tunde Sanusi, often for their own properties or for onward shipment to Nigeria.
The defence worked throughout the session to establish what it described as a consistent pattern: the most expensive items on the prosecution’s schedule were not hers, while her confirmed purchases were comparatively modest. The court heard references to luxury shopping at high-end retailers including Harrods, where Alison-Madueke described herself as a regular customer. She insisted, however, that not all purchases made in her name or linked to her accounts were for personal use, and suggested that in several instances Aluko may have acted independently while she was out of the country.
On electronic items including headphones and speakers, she told the court these were frequently intended as gifts distributed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to traditional rulers, community leaders, and business associates, particularly during festive periods.
Proceedings also examined financial transactions linked to an account associated with a man identified as Prince Momoh, which showed multiple cash deposits totaling over $160,000 subsequently used for luxury purchases. Alison-Madueke described the staggered deposit pattern as reflecting common financial practices in Nigeria where large sums are typically paid in instalments rather than as single lump sum payments.
On private jet travel, she defended arrangements where third parties covered flight costs by citing security considerations and the demands of her international engagements as petroleum minister, including attendance at meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. She said some travel costs were subsequently reimbursed by the corporation.
In an emotional segment of her testimony, the former minister described the personal toll of her arrest in October 2015, disclosing that she had been undergoing chemotherapy at the time and that her doctor had to intervene to secure her release from police custody. She spoke about the devastating impact the prolonged legal proceedings had on her health, finances, and family life, and said that since relocating to the United Kingdom in 2015 she had been unable to return to Nigeria or secure employment, relying on the support of friends and family.
Alison-Madueke further alleged that she became a deliberate target of political persecution in the period leading up to Nigeria’s 2015 general elections, claiming that opposition figures had singled her out as a scapegoat for the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. She expressed serious reservations about investigations conducted by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, suggesting that key records may have been lost or mishandled during transitions between administrations, and said this was why she had retained personal records relating to her official activities.
The defence also raised the context of her tenure’s broader political environment, suggesting that international oil companies dissatisfied with her efforts to renegotiate production-sharing contracts under the Petroleum Industry Bill may have contributed to the commercial and political pressures surrounding her time in office.
As the day’s proceedings concluded, the defence continued to advance its central argument that the case amounted to misattribution and circumstantial association, maintaining that the prosecution had not established direct ownership or control over many of the assets in question. The trial is expected to continue with further cross-examination and submissions in the coming days.
