The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to disregard evidence of former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke’s acquittal by a United Kingdom court in a suit challenging the forfeiture of her assets
The anti-graft agency made the request in a further counter-affidavit filed in opposition to Diezani’s application seeking to introduce the UK court’s decision as evidence in the ongoing proceedings.
Diezani was acquitted on June 17, 2026, by the Southwark Crown Court in London of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her in the United Kingdom.
Following the acquittal, the former minister asked the Federal High Court to allow her to present the development as a subsequent event that is relevant to her challenge against the forfeiture and proposed sale of some of her assets.
In the substantive suit, Diezani is challenging, among other things, an EFCC public notice concerning the auction and sale of properties and personal effects which she claims affect her proprietary rights.
However, in its further counter-affidavit filed on October 5, the EFCC argued that the UK acquittal has no bearing on the issues before the Nigerian court.
Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in the law firm of Mofesomo Oyetibo, counsel to the EFCC, said the proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court were separate from the Nigerian proceedings and should not be introduced into the case.
“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,” the affidavit stated.
The commission also disputed the suggestion that the forfeiture proceedings before the Nigerian court were affected by the outcome of the UK criminal case.
According to the EFCC, the relevant forfeiture order relates specifically to jewellery and does not cover other categories of assets or properties.
“The order for forfeiture relates exclusively to items of jewellery and does not extend to any other category of assets or properties,” Ekienabor stated.
The commission further argued that Diezani’s supplementary affidavit contained facts that were irrelevant to the issues requiring determination by the court.
Follow Us on Facebook – @LadunLiadi; Instagram – @LadunLiadi; Twitter – @LadunLiadi; Youtube – @LadunLiadiTV for updates
