The defence and prosecution have closed their cases in the ongoing trial of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, at the Southwark Crown Court in the United Kingdom, with a jury now set to deliver its verdict later this week.

Alison-Madueke is standing trial alongside oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde and her brother, Doye Agama, on a five-count charge bordering on alleged bribery. All three defendants have pleaded not guilty.

British prosecutors allege that the former minister received bribes in the form of luxury items and high-value properties from oil industry actors seeking favourable treatment in the award of oil contracts during her tenure between 2010 and 2015.

The prosecution maintains that such benefits were improperly received and argues that there is no documentary evidence supporting claims of reimbursement or legitimate financial transactions backing the alleged transfers.

In his closing submissions, defence counsel Jonathan Laidlaw accused the prosecution of failing to charge alleged bribe givers and relying on what he described as incomplete and unreliable evidence.

He questioned the handling of evidence from a 2015 raid on Alison-Madueke’s Abuja residence, alleging procedural irregularities, including the absence of key officials during the operation and lack of photographic records of items in their original locations.

Laidlaw further argued that critical documents that could support the defence case—such as records relating to reimbursements and official ministerial duties—were missing. He also faulted the prosecution’s reliance on evidence linked to Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), while challenging its rejection of parts of the same material in relation to co-defendant Ayinde.

He also disputed claims that official travel and financial records relating to the former minister were unavailable, describing the prosecution’s position as inconsistent.

Responding, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy maintained that oil executives provided improper benefits to the former minister while their companies benefited from lucrative state contracts. She argued that such arrangements were incompatible with public office and unsupported by any documentary evidence of reimbursement.

Healy further referenced a £1 million payment linked to businessman Benedict Peters, describing the use of intermediary structures as a deliberate attempt to conceal the nature of the transaction.

She also noted that Alison-Madueke had been aware of the investigation for nearly a decade.

With both sides having completed their submissions, the jury is expected to return its verdict later this week. (The Guardian)