The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has challenged the move by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to present court documents of a Southwark Crown Court judgment in London, United Kingdom, which recently discharged and acquitted her from corruption charges.

The anti-graft agency in a further counter-affidavit to Diezani’s request to present the UK favourable judgment is arguing that the purported acquittal of Diezani by a foreign criminal court was not material or relevant to the specific issues for determination before the instant court.

Recall that Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had few months ago granted permission to Diezani present evidence of the London court judgment.

Recall also that the UK court had, on June 17, discharged and acquitted the ex-minister in respect of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her by the UK authorities.

Based on her acquittal, Diezani, in a suit filed before Justice Ekwo, sought to reclaim her assets forfeited to the Nigerian federal government following an order of court.

In the amended originating motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, she sued the EFCC as sole respondent.

At the last adjourned date, Godwin Iyinbor had moved a motion seeking the court’s permission to file a further/supplementary affidavit for the purpose of bringing fresh and material development with respect to Diezani’s acquittal by the UK court.

After Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, did not raise objection to filing the application, the judge granted Iyinbor’s prayer.

Upon filing the further/supplementary affidavit, the EFCC then responded with a further counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, the EFCC opposed Diezani’s request to present the evidence.

When the case was called on Tuesday, Mrs. Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, who appeared for Diezani, informed the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and their originating motion.

She, however, told the court that the commission had just served them with a motion prior to the commencement of hearing.

Uwe said the motion was the respondent’s further counter-affidavit to their further/supplementary affidavit.

She equally reminded the court of their motion to regularise their processes.

Responding, the court adjourned till November 11 for hearing of the motions.

The EFCC in its further counter-affidavit, dated and filed October 5, stated that some of the depositions in Diezani’s application were misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the substantive issues for determination in her present suit.

“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.”

According to the litigation officer, there is nothing in the public sale notice indicating that any of the properties listed therein belong to the applicant (Diezani).

Ekienabor submitted that “the order for forfeiture relates exclusively to items of jewelry and does not extend to any other category of assets or properties.”

He argued that parties are not permitted to expand the scope of a matter before a court.

“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” he said.

He, therefore, prayed the court to discountenance Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit seeking to present evidence of her acquittal in the UK court.

Diezani had in the 10-ground motion filed by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, challenged among other things, the public notice issued by the EFCC for the public auction/sale of properties and/or personal effects 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 regulating forfeiture, management and disposal of properties.”

The lawyer said Diezani had filed her amended originating motion on February 19, 2025, pursuant to the leave of the court granted on February 17, 2025.

“After the filing of the applicant’s processes and while this suit was still pending before this honourable court, a subsequent and material event occurred, to wit: the applicant was acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, on June 17, 2026, of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her, a proceeding of obvious material relevance to the allegations repeatedly referenced in relation to the applicant.

“The said subsequent development is material and relevant to the applicant’s case, particularly as it relates to the issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation, and the need for strict compliance with statutory safeguards before disposal of properties affecting the applicant’s proprietary rights.”

He said the ex-minister did not seek by this application to invite the court to sit on appeal over the said foreign decision or to treat same as automatically conclusive of the Nigerian proceedings.

He, however, said it was to place before the court subsequent material fact which would assist the court in doing substantial justice.

According to Ozekhome, the said fact was not available at the time the applicant filed her earlier processes and could not have been pleaded or deposed to earlier.

He submitted that the court had the power and discretion to allow a party to file the application where such facts would assist the court in the just determination of the issues before it.

While submitting that the commission would not be prejudiced by the grant of the application, he urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice. (This Day)

Update news