EFCC opposes Diezani’s bid to rely on UK acquittal in asset-forfeiture case

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has opposed an attempt by former Petroleum Resources Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke to rely on her acquittal by a United Kingdom court in an ongoing Nigerian case involving forfeited assets.

The EFCC asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to disregard a supplementary affidavit filed by Alison-Madueke containing evidence of the June 17 judgment of the Southwark Crown Court in London.

The UK court discharged and acquitted the former minister of bribery allegations brought against her there.

Alison-Madueke is challenging the forfeiture and proposed disposal of assets she says affect her proprietary rights.

Her case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, names the EFCC as the sole respondent.

EFCC says UK case is separate
In its counter-affidavit, the EFCC argued that the London criminal proceedings were separate from the issues currently before the Nigerian court.
The commission maintained that the UK acquittal was therefore not material to the specific legal questions the Federal High Court must determine.
It also argued that the forfeiture order relevant to the case concerned jewellery and that Alison-Madueke’s new affidavit risked expanding the scope of the dispute.
Alison-Madueke’s lawyers disagree.

Her legal team argues that the UK acquittal is relevant because part of her Nigerian case concerns the absence of a conviction, alleged denial of fair hearing and whether proper statutory procedures were followed before property connected to her was forfeited or disposed of.

Her lawyers said they were not asking the Nigerian court to treat the UK judgment as automatically deciding the Nigerian proceedings.
Instead, they argued that the acquittal was a subsequent development the court should consider when determining the dispute.

Court fixes November 11 for hearing
Justice Inyang Ekwo has fixed November 11 for the hearing of the outstanding motions.
The court had earlier allowed Alison-Madueke to file additional material relating to the UK judgment after the EFCC did not oppose the initial request at that stage.

The commission subsequently filed its counter-affidavit challenging the relevance of the new evidence.

The Federal High Court has not yet determined the substantive dispute.