Alison-Madueke Raises Fair Hearing Concerns, Says FG Withholding Key Defence Documents

Emmanuel Addeh in Abuja

A former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, has questioned the fairness of her ongoing corruption trial in the United Kingdom, alleging that the combined actions of the Nigerian and British governments had denied her access to crucial documents needed to defend herself.

At the proceedings before Southwark Crown Court in London during the week, Alison-Madueke, through her legal team, formally challenged the integrity of the process, saying that the evidence central to her defence had been seized, filtered, or withheld, leaving her at a disadvantage.

Alison-Madueke’s position was relayed in a statement from her media aide, Bolouere Opukiri, which outlined the issues raised by her lawyers, Jonathan Laidlaw and Alistair Richardson.

The duo told the court that the trial should not continue if the defendant were being denied the materials and opportunity required for a fair hearing.

Alison-Madueke’s lawyers traced the origins of the case to July 2013, when investigations began, noting that she was first arrested in London in October 2015 while undergoing cancer treatment and interviewed by the UK’s National Crime Agency shortly thereafter.

Despite this, formal charges were not filed until 2023, a delay the defence described as excessive and prejudicial.

Throughout this period, UK authorities, according to the former minister’s lawyers, retained her passport, effectively preventing her from returning to Nigeria.

Laidlaw told the jury that this restriction had left Alison-Madueke unable to work and unable to travel home to gather documents and meet potential witnesses, a situation the defence said had seriously impaired her ability to prepare her case.

For a trial concerning actions allegedly taken while she was a senior Nigerian official, her enforced absence from Nigeria, in the defence’s view, was a fundamental handicap.

“The core of her argument is that if she is being deprived of the materials and freedom necessary for a fair hearing, the case against her should be dismissed,” Alison-Madueke’s defence counsel argued.

The prosecution alleged that Alison-Madueke received improper financial benefits, including accommodation and luxury items, during her tenure in office.

But the defence countered that these expenses were either legitimate official costs later reimbursed through the Nigerian government’s channels or were paid from her personal funds in Nigeria.

They argued that documentary records in Abuja would demonstrate that she did not personally benefit from the arrangements in question.

Alison-Madueke maintained that the Nigerian authorities raided her homes and seized documents that could support this position.

According to her account, the records included evidence of reimbursements made in Nigeria, with third parties initially covering costs abroad.

She contended that these materials would show that she derived no unlawful personal gain.

The defence team emphasised that after multiple changes of government and more than eleven years, they were informed that many of these records “do not exist,” a claim they dispute.

Although the Nigerian authorities later sent boxes of documents to the UK, Alison-Madueke’s lawyers argued that the material provided was incomplete and omitted key categories of evidence.

More significantly, they alleged that UK investigators were aware of the arrival and contents of these boxes but did not inform the defence at the relevant time.

“For a defendant facing trial in a foreign country for actions taken while holding high office in her homeland, the defence presented this enforced absence as a significant disadvantage that undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

“The necessity of returning to Nigeria is tied to the physical evidence required to rebut the prosecution’s case. Central to the defence argument is the ‘reimbursement theory’: The claim that high-end expenses incurred during her ministerial travels were legitimate costs later reimbursed from Nigeria—either through ministerial budgets for official business or from her private funds,” Alison-Madueke’s team argued.

However, in an attempt to address the imbalance, the court approved a request for members of Alison-Madueke’s legal team to travel to Nigeria to seek the missing records directly. That effort has yet to yield results, with the defence saying the Nigerian government has not responded to its request for access. Without cooperation from Abuja, they argue, the defence remains unable to retrieve documents they believe are vital to establishing her innocence.

Alison-Madueke’s lawyers further questioned why none of the alleged bribe-givers has been charged and why a case rooted in Nigerian governmental practice is being tried in London, where witnesses may be unwilling to testify for fear of persecution.