The trial of former Nigerian Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, resumed on Day 23 at the Southwark Crown Court in London, with the ex-minister telling the court she was unfairly blamed and effectively made a scapegoat for decisions taken at the highest levels of government, particularly during the fallout from Nigeria’s 2012 fuel subsidy crisis.

Testifying under cross-examination, Diezani said she felt “betrayed” by the manner in which the subsidy removal was implemented under former President Goodluck Jonathan, noting that the abrupt New Year’s Day announcement triggered nationwide unrest and placed her, as the Petroleum Minister, at the centre of public outrage.

She insisted that the policy had been the subject of prior deliberations and that its sudden execution exposed her to criticism for decisions she did not solely control.

“I felt betrayed to a certain extent,” she said, referring to the decision taken under former President Goodluck Jonathan.

“I felt like a scapegoat because I was ultimately responsible as oil minister.”

Diezani rejected suggestions by the prosecution that she exercised authority over luxury properties allegedly connected to businessman Ben Peters, insisting that her involvement was limited to offering interior design advice.

“I was giving advice, not instructions,” she told the court, pushing back against claims that she directed refurbishment works or controlled the properties in question.

According to her, communications with contractors and intermediaries were purely advisory and did not translate into ownership or decision-making authority.

She further argued that there was no documentary evidence directly linking her to legal ownership of the properties, maintaining that any inference to the contrary was speculative.

On the issue of her alleged use of a property known as Harbour House, she said she did not stay there and, at most, may have visited once.

At several points during the proceedings, Diezani challenged the credibility of witnesses whose accounts the prosecution relied upon.

She questioned the accuracy of a furniture dealer’s testimony regarding payment arrangements and dismissed attempts to identify her through visitor logs under a different name.

“You are implying that the black woman is me, and I’m telling you that I’m not the one,” she said, firmly rejecting the suggestion.

A key plank of her defence was her insistence that she did not improperly benefit from luxury goods.

While acknowledging that she selected furniture and decorative items during the period under review, she maintained that any items used personally were paid for.

“There was always someone to pay at the point of purchase,” she said, explaining that while third parties may have handled payments initially, reimbursements were made in cash.

She told the court that this reflected the realities of Nigeria’s largely cash-based economy at the time.

Diezani also offered explanations for the movement and storage of items cited by the prosecution, describing them as part of a normal interior design process rather than evidence of personal acquisition.

According to her, items were often moved between locations or placed in storage as part of staging and refurbishment decisions.

Addressing allegations of financial benefits flowing through associates to her family, the former minister distanced herself from such transactions and denied prior knowledge of them.

She told the court she was unaware of donations allegedly made to her brother’s church and had no involvement in its affairs beyond attending an award ceremony.

“I was not involved in any way,” she said, adding that her brother never discussed such matters with her.

On payments made by associates for personal or family-related expenses, including school fees, Diezani framed such gestures within the context of Nigerian social norms.

She explained that it was not unusual for wealthy individuals to assist others financially, and that such actions should not automatically be construed as improper.

In one instance, she said her son’s school fees in the United Kingdom were paid by Peters after he overheard a conversation about the issue.

She insisted that the payment was unsolicited and consistent with a culture of generosity.

“We did not ask for it,” she said, maintaining that there was no intention to derive undue benefit.

Diezani also addressed questions surrounding her use of a private jet, which prosecutors suggested reflected extravagant spending.

She maintained that the flight was necessitated by the urgency of the situation in Nigeria at the time of the fuel subsidy crisis.

According to her, she had originally planned to return to Nigeria on a commercial flight but had to leave earlier due to the sudden escalation of unrest.

We were taken completely by surprise,” she said, explaining that her immediate return was required in response to the deteriorating situation.

Throughout the cross-examination, Diezani frequently stated that she could not recall specific details relating to emails, invoices, and transactions dating back more than a decade.

She attributed these memory gaps to the passage of time and the volume of material presented in court.

“Madam Prosecutor, I cannot possibly answer that question in 2026, after all these years,” she said during one exchange.

The prosecution, however, continues to argue that the pattern of communications, payments, and asset movements forms part of a broader scheme in which Diezani benefited from assets held in the names of others.

Proceedings are expected to continue with further cross-examination as the court examines the competing narratives. (THISDAY)

Update news