Former Nigerian Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has told the Southwark Crown Court in London that she neither controlled nor personally benefited from a series of luxury purchases and financial transactions presented by prosecutors in her ongoing trial.

The court continued hearing evidence centred on alleged high-value spending patterns in 2013, with the prosecution presenting emails, travel records, invoices, text messages and Harrods transaction documents as part of its case linking the former minister to luxury goods and property-related purchases.

During cross-examination, prosecutors returned to a series of events in July 2013, including travel movements, communications, and shopping records involving designer items, watches, furniture, and household fittings.

The prosecution suggested the pattern of transactions showed coordinated spending involving associates acting on behalf of the defendant.

Diezani, however, consistently maintained that she did not exercise control over the financial activities of key individuals referenced in the case, including Mr Aluko, whom she described as playing an advisory role rather than acting under her direction.

She told the court she was not involved in the execution of transactions attributed to him and did not supervise his financial decisions.

The prosecution confronted her with Harrods invoices and personal shopping records said to include watches, handbags, candles, luxury clothing, and furniture items purchased around early July 2013.

In response, she repeatedly stated that she either had no knowledge of the transactions or could not recall them.

When asked specifically whether she had received original luxury watches allegedly purchased on her behalf, she denied it, saying, “Not at all,” though she acknowledged owning a Rolex when questioned separately.

On several other Harrods-related transactions dated between 4 and 6 July 2013, she told the court she could not confirm whether the purchases were intended for her, stating, “I have no idea,” when asked if Mr Aluko was shopping on her behalf.

The court was also shown invoices and photographs linked to property-related items, including floor lamps, wall lights, and decorative furniture allegedly purchased during the same period.

When asked whether she selected the items, she said she could not clearly remember and suggested that, where design input was required, she sometimes offered general advice based on her background.

She told the court that some of the items shown could be for her while others might not be, adding that she was not in a position to definitively identify each item presented.

She also referred to her architectural training as context for her involvement in discussions about property design and maintenance, stating that she would sometimes advise on aesthetic and structural considerations when asked.

The prosecution further relied on messages and communications exchanged during the period, including texts relating to meetings, deliveries, and coordination with Harrods and other vendors.

These were presented to suggest she was actively engaged in arranging or directing procurement activity.

However, Diezani disputed the interpretation being placed on the communications, saying she could not clearly recall many of them and that they should not be read as evidence of direct involvement in financial decisions.

Attention was also drawn to the role of individuals such as Mr Momoh, who allegedly facilitated purchases using payment cards later reimbursed through separate arrangements.

The defendant told the court she was aware that aides and facilitators were sometimes used in logistical and administrative support roles but insisted she did not manage or direct their financial transactions.

She said such arrangements were not unusual in official environments where individuals acted in supporting capacities and were later reimbursed depending on circumstances.

The prosecution also questioned her on a series of text messages and travel records suggesting she was present in different locations during key transaction periods.

Diezani referred to the complexity of her schedule at the time, including official duties and international travel, as a reason for her inability to recall specific events in detail.

At several points during cross-examination, she maintained that she could not remember the context of certain communications or purchases, and cautioned against interpreting lack of recollection as confirmation of involvement.

She insisted that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on inference drawn from third-party actions rather than direct evidence linking her to personal benefit or control of funds.

She argued that many of the activities cited in court were carried out independently by third parties operating within their own capacities, and that she was not directly responsible for their financial decisions.

The court also heard references to property maintenance issues and renovation works at a location described as “The Falls,” where the defendant said structural and system failures required attention, including heating and cooling repairs.

She explained that discussions around fittings and improvements were part of broader maintenance efforts and not necessarily linked to personal procurement.

The trial continues as prosecutors seek to establish whether the pattern of luxury transactions and communications amounts to evidence of illicit enrichment or whether, as the defence maintains, they reflect independent actions of third parties without direct control or benefit to the defendant.

Further cross-examination is expected as both sides continue to test the meaning and reliability of documentary evidence, financial records, and witness statements presented before the court. (This Day)

Update news