ABUJA, Nigeria — The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to disregard former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to introduce evidence of her acquittal by a United Kingdom court into her ongoing suit challenging the forfeiture of her assets.
The anti-graft agency, in a further counter-affidavit filed in opposition to Diezani’s application, argued that her June 17, 2026 acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London was unrelated to the issues the Nigerian court is required to determine.
The EFCC urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to dismiss the former minister’s application, contending that the proceedings in the UK concerned criminal allegations that were not before any Nigerian court.
The commission’s latest position followed an earlier decision by Justice Ekwo to allow Diezani to file additional evidence concerning the UK judgment.
Diezani had sought the court’s permission to file a further/supplementary affidavit after she was discharged and acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court over bribery allegations.
Her lawyer, Godwin Iyinbor, had previously moved the application after the EFCC’s counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, did not object to the filing of the process at the time.
However, after Diezani filed the supplementary affidavit, the EFCC responded with a further counter-affidavit, arguing that the fresh material was misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the substantive issues in the Nigerian case.
In the counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, the commission maintained that the UK proceedings had no bearing on the suit before Justice Ekwo.
“The proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, and the purported acquittal of the applicant therein, are in respect of a proceeding that is not being prosecuted before any Nigerian court and have nothing to do with the substantive suit before this honourable court,” Ekienabor stated.
The EFCC further argued that Diezani’s supplementary affidavit was attempting to introduce issues outside the scope of the case.
It maintained that nothing in the public sale notice indicated that the properties listed for disposal belonged to Diezani.
The commission also clarified that the forfeiture order at issue related exclusively to jewellery and did not cover other categories of assets or properties.
“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” the EFCC argued.
The commission consequently asked the court to discountenance the supplementary affidavit containing evidence of Diezani’s UK acquittal.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, Diezani’s lawyer, Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, told the court that the case was scheduled for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the originating motion.
She, however, informed the court that the commission had served them with its further counter-affidavit shortly before the proceedings commenced.
Uwe also reminded the court of Diezani’s pending application seeking to regularise some of her processes.
Responding, counsel for the EFCC, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at what he described as the continued filing of processes by Diezani as though the matter were an election petition.
He nevertheless told the court that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until November 11 for the hearing of the pending motions.
Diezani’s suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, was filed against the EFCC over the agency’s actions relating to the forfeiture and proposed sale of assets and personal effects allegedly connected to her.
In her amended originating motion filed on February 19, 2025, pursuant to the court’s leave granted two days earlier, the former minister challenged, among other things, the EFCC’s public notice for the auction and sale of properties and personal effects which she said affected her proprietary rights.
Her counsel, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, argued that a central issue in the suit was whether the EFCC could impose what he described as serious proprietary consequences on Diezani without conviction, fair hearing and strict compliance with statutory requirements governing forfeiture, management and disposal of property.
Ozekhome said the June 17, 2026 decision of the Southwark Crown Court constituted a subsequent material development that occurred after the Nigerian suit had been filed.
According to him, Diezani was not asking the Federal High Court to sit on appeal over the UK judgment or automatically treat the foreign decision as conclusive in the Nigerian proceedings.
Rather, he argued that the acquittal should be admitted as a subsequent fact capable of assisting the court in determining issues concerning conviction, fair hearing, due process and the legality of permanently depriving her of property.
Ozekhome maintained that the development could not have been included in Diezani’s earlier processes because it occurred after those processes had been filed.
He further argued that admitting the additional evidence would not prejudice the EFCC and would serve the interest of justice.
The Federal High Court is now expected to determine the competing applications and arguments when the matter comes up on November 11.
