The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to discountenance evidence of the acquittal of former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, by the Southwark Crown Court in London.
Find Legal Help
The anti-graft agency, in a further counter-affidavit filed before Justice Inyang Ekwo, urged the court to dismiss Diezani’s application seeking to present the UK court judgment.
The EFCC argued that the purported acquittal by a foreign criminal court is not material or relevant to the issues for determination before the Nigerian court.
Justice Ekwo had in July granted Diezani’s application to file additional evidence after it was not opposed by EFCC counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo (SAN).
The UK court had on June 17, 2026 discharged and acquitted the former minister of bribery allegations brought against her in the United Kingdom.
Following the judgment, Diezani, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, sought to reclaim her forfeited assets. She sued the EFCC as sole respondent.
Her lawyer, Godwin Iyinbor, had moved a motion seeking leave to file a further/supplementary affidavit to bring the UK acquittal to the court’s attention, which was granted.
Find Legal Aid
But the EFCC has now opposed it.
In the further counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, and dated October 5, the Commission said some depositions in Diezani’s application are misleading, immaterial and irrelevant.
“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 averred.
He argued that there was nothing in the public sale notice indicating that any of the properties listed belong to Diezani, and that the forfeiture order relates exclusively to items of jewelry and does not extend to any other category of assets.
He added that parties are not permitted to expand the scope of a matter before the court, saying Diezani’s further affidavit introduces irrelevant facts and diverts attention from the core issues.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Diezani’s counsel, Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, told the court the matter was for hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the originating motion, but noted that the EFCC had just served them with the further counter-affidavit. She also reminded the court of their motion to regularise processes.
Responding, Paul Mgbeoma, counsel for the EFCC, expressed surprise at the number of processes being filed by Diezani, likening it to an election petition, and said he was ready to proceed.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter to November 11 for hearing of the motions.
In the 10-ground argument filed by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, on behalf of Diezani, the former minister said she is challenging the public notice issued by the EFCC for the auction/sale of properties affecting her proprietary rights.
“A major plank of the applicant’s case before this honourable court is that the respondent had sought to visit the applicant with grave proprietary consequences without conviction, without fair hearing, and without strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,” Ozekhome argued.
He said the UK acquittal on June 17, 2026, is material and relevant to issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process and propriety of irreversible deprivation of property.
According to him, Diezani is not asking the court to sit on appeal over the foreign decision or treat it as automatically conclusive, but to place a subsequent material fact before the court to assist it in doing substantial justice, as the fact was not available when earlier processes are filed.