The defence and prosecution have concluded their arguments in the ongoing bribery trial of Diezani Alison-Madueke at the Southwark Crown Court in the United Kingdom, with the jury expected to deliver its verdict later this week.
Gatekeepers News reports that Alison-Madueke is standing trial alongside Olatimbo Ayinde and Doye Agama over a five-count charge relating to alleged bribery offences.
All three defendants have pleaded not guilty.
British prosecutors accused the former petroleum minister of accepting luxury gifts and high-end properties from oil industry figures in exchange for influence over lucrative oil contracts during her tenure between 2010 and 2015.
The ex-minister and her legal team have consistently denied the allegations.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Jonathan Laidlaw, counsel to Alison-Madueke, presented his closing arguments, accusing UK prosecutors of relying on questionable evidence and failing to prosecute those alleged to have paid the bribes.
According to reports by THISDAY, Laidlaw argued that wealthy oil businessmen allegedly linked to the payments were never charged alongside the former minister.
“One can be forgiven whether parliament, in its wisdom, when enacting the Bribery Act, could have contemplated this absurd situation where the people who are alleged to have paid the bribes are free, while the accused has been held prisoner for 11 years,” Laidlaw was quoted as saying.
The defence counsel also questioned the handling of evidence during the 2015 raid on Alison-Madueke’s Abuja residence, claiming officials of the UK’s National Crime Agency were not present during the operation.
He further argued that items allegedly recovered from the residence were not photographed in their original positions and claimed the agency did not possess the original materials currently being relied upon in court.
Laidlaw alleged that several documents capable of supporting the defence had disappeared, including records relating to reimbursements and official documents tied to Alison-Madueke’s activities while serving as minister.
He also challenged the prosecution’s assertion that records relating to the former minister’s official movements and fund disbursements could not be found.
The defence further criticised prosecutors for relying heavily on evidence generated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), while allegedly dismissing EFCC correspondence submitted in support of co-defendant Ayinde as unreliable.
In response, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy maintained that several oil executives provided improper benefits to Alison-Madueke while their companies secured profitable state contracts during her time in office.
Healy told the jury that it was inappropriate for a serving minister to have her lifestyle financed by individuals conducting business with the Nigerian government.
The prosecutor also rejected the defence’s argument that all benefits received had been reimbursed in Nigeria, saying no documentary proof of reimbursement had been produced and that such claims were absent during earlier police interviews.
According to the prosecution, Alison-Madueke had been aware of the investigation for nearly a decade.
The prosecution additionally referenced a £1 million payment allegedly linked to Benedict Peters, describing the use of intermediary structures in the transaction as an “extraordinary device” intended to conceal the true nature of the payment.
The jury is expected to return its verdict later this week.
