Proceedings at the Southwark Crown Court, London, in the trial of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, continued Tuesday and reached a key stage as the defence closed its case following her final testimony, in which she denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
Alison-Madueke also denied claims of bribery, secret meetings, improper travel arrangements, and receipt of luxury gifts or financial benefits linked to oil sector actors.
Throughout her testimony, Alison-Madueke consistently denied the allegations, insisting she neither initiated nor requested meetings for improper purposes.
She maintained that many of the arrangements under scrutiny were handled by state institutions or third parties, rather than by her, personally.
A key feature of her defence was her insistence that there was no direct evidence linking her to personal financial benefit from the transactions being examined.
She told the court she had no knowledge of several of the financial dealings presented and did not manage personal or third-party accounts referenced by the prosecution.
The court also heard that former President Goodluck Jonathan declined to give evidence via video link and could not be compelled to attend proceedings, a development the defence cited as a gap in the evidential chain involving key witnesses.
Alison-Madueke was cross-examined on transcripts, travel records, and recorded conversations involving business associates, including Jide Omokore and Kola Aluko, relating to interactions around 2014 and 2015, including meetings said to have taken place in the United Kingdom.
She told the court she did not request a meeting with Aluko in the UK. She explained that she was already in the country for other engagements and he had sought to meet her team.
The former minister maintained that she was not responsible for logistical arrangements, stating that such matters were handled by institutions, such as Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
“I was not the logistics person for any of these trips,” she said.
On travel arrangements, she said she could not clearly recall whether a particular trip was official or personal, a point prosecutors linked to a travel request described as personal.
She rejected the suggestion that the visit was arranged to facilitate any improper meeting.
Alison-Madueke also told the court she was undergoing cancer treatment during parts of the period under review, adding that her health affected her recollection of certain events. This, the defence argued, provided context for any perceived inconsistencies in memory.
On allegations that she received luxury gifts and other benefits from oil sector associates, she acknowledged references in conversations but strongly denied that they amounted to bribes or inducements.
She rejected claims involving handbags, furniture, yachts, or properties, insisting they were misinterpretations of business-related discussions and commentary on industry conduct.
Alison-Madueke told the court that some of her remarks were advisory in nature, aimed at encouraging discretion among associates during a sensitive period in the oil sector, rather than instructions or endorsements of wrongdoing.
A recorded conversation in which she was said to have used strong language suggesting willingness to face jail alongside others was also examined.
The prosecution argued it demonstrated awareness of wrongdoing, but she rejected that interpretation, stating that it reflected colloquial expression rather than an admission of guilt.
She insisted there was no consciousness of wrongdoing.
The court also reviewed communications suggesting attempts by individuals to compile damaging material against her during her tenure.
Alison-Madueke said she was aware of politically motivated efforts to undermine her position but maintained that such claims did not amount to evidence of wrongdoing.
The defence further argued that much of the prosecution’s case relied on interpretations of conversations and financial records, rather than direct evidence of misconduct, and challenged the completeness and context of several recorded excerpts.
Financial records involving associates, including Prince Momoh, were also examined.
She told the court she had no direct knowledge of several transactions and denied awareness of claims that payment cards were used for her expenses in London.
She repeatedly emphasised that official expenses, such as travel and accommodation, were handled through state institutions, particularly the NNPC, reinforcing the defence position that she did not personally control or authorise such expenditures.
She also told the court she had been unable to travel freely since 2015 due to ongoing investigations and said searches had been conducted at her property during inquiries.
She added that she initially believed she was dealing primarily with Nigerian authorities and did not fully understand the scale of proceedings in the United Kingdom at the outset.
Alison-Madueke maintained throughout the proceedings that the allegations were based on assumptions, interpretations, or contested readings of conversations and records, and not on direct proof of wrongdoing or personal enrichment.
The cross-examination concluded after further questioning on travel arrangements, charitable payments, and alleged third-party benefits, marking the close of the defence case.
In separate proceedings, Tony Mulcahy concluded his testimony in a strand of evidence involving disputed ownership claims and alleged financial misrepresentations linked to businessman Kola Aluko and associates.
Mulcahy was cross-examined on links between Alison-Madueke, Aluko, and Jide Omokore regarding luxury goods purchased from Harrods, their storage, and intended delivery.
The prosecution sought to establish shifting references to ownership in correspondence, suggesting uncertainty over the true client behind the transactions.
Omokore was said to have acknowledged ownership of the goods, but Mulcahy insisted he required written confirmation and assurances over outstanding storage and logistics payments.
Delivery arrangements were cancelled in August 2015 due to unresolved payment issues, with further correspondence in September reinforcing the same concerns.
By late September 2015, Mulcahy wrote to lawyer Donald Amamgbowarning that he would withhold cargo due to non-payment and later confirmed he had done so, effectively ending his involvement.
He told the court he was unaware of any formal transfer of ownership until later discussions where Omokore asserted ownership.
Under cross-examination, Mulcahy conceded he had been misled on several occasions by Aluko, stating, “Yes, he lied.”
He also confirmed financial disputes escalated over several years, with debts reaching £405,000, and said he eventually placed his company into administration before restructuring operations.
By late 2012, he said, he had begun to doubt the reliability of information provided by Aluko.
However, he maintained that Alison-Madueke herself did not directly mislead him and was cooperative when disputes arose.
Mulcahy formally concluded his testimony following cross-examination.
Wale Igbintade
Follow us on: