Diezani Denies Knowledge of $100,000 Cash Allegation as London Trial Intensifies
• Distances self from luxury spending, says associates handled payments without her involvement
Wale Igbintade
The trial of former Nigerian petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, resumed on Day 24 at the Southwark Crown Court in London, with the alleged $100,000 cash delivery emerging as one of the most closely scrutinised issues of the day.
Alison-Madueke firmly denied any knowledge of the cash sum said to have been withdrawn and delivered to a property linked to her, insisting she only became aware of the allegation during disclosure in the ongoing proceedings.
“No, it was not for me,” she told the court when asked directly whether the $100,000 cash was intended for her use.
The prosecution has alleged that the cash withdrawal formed part of a wider pattern of indirect financial transactions linked to properties and luxury spending associated with the former minister.
However, Alison-Madueke rejected any connection to the funds, maintaining she had no involvement in the transaction or its delivery.
Proceedings began later than scheduled due to transport disruptions caused by a Tube strike, before moving into jury questions and continued cross-examination focused on financial movements, cash transactions, and the use of intermediaries.
Alongside the $100,000 allegation, prosecutors also revisited claims involving luxury spending at Harrods, including high-value purchases and transactions said to be linked to businessman Kola Aluko and others.
Alison-Madueke accepted that a £1,400 Prada handbag was purchased for her but denied any knowledge or authorisation of several other transactions.
She maintained she did not direct payments and suggested that various associates may have acted independently.
“It didn’t have to be Aluko,” she said, adding that multiple individuals were involved in different arrangements at the time.
When questioned further, she said luxury items referenced in evidence could have been gifts or used by members of her extended family, noting that several people had access to the London residence under review.
A juror also raised concerns about why high-end items allegedly bought as gifts remained in her possession after she left public office.
In response, Alison-Madueke reiterated that the property was shared among family members and that items found there could not automatically be attributed to her.
The prosecution also linked her travel history to financial events, suggesting that her presence in the United Kingdom in December 2011 coincided with the commencement of one of the transactions under scrutiny.
She, however, said she had no recollection of the specific arrangements.
Further questioning examined the role of intermediaries, including personal assistants and associates alleged to have processed payments across multiple credit cards and accounts.
Alison-Madueke said she did not manage such financial details and was not involved in reimbursement processes.
On property matters, she rejected claims that London residences referenced by the prosecution were acquired or maintained for her benefit or that of her family, describing her role as advisory rather than operational.
The defence also relied on agreed facts concerning her driver, Gary Malcolm, clarifying his employment history and association with her.
She further explained that household expenses were handled through a combination of official and private arrangements.
As the hearing progressed, prosecutors relied heavily on documentary evidence including emails, invoices and transaction records, while Alison-Madueke repeatedly stated that she could not recall detailed events from more than a decade ago without supporting documents.
The day’s proceedings underscored a central issue in the case: the prosecution’s reliance on indirect financial links and alleged cash movements, including the disputed $100,000, and the defence’s argument that such associations do not establish knowledge, control or wrongdoing.
The trial continues.
