Jury Enters Final Stage as Judge Sets Directions in Diezani Alison-Madueke’s Trial

Wale Igbintade

The trial of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, in London moved into its decisive closing stage yesterday as the judge delivered detailed directions to the jury before the prosecution opened its final arguments at the Southwark Crown Court.

Presiding judge, Justice Justine Thornton, told jurors that all evidence in the case had now been concluded and their task was to determine the charges strictly based on law and the evidence presented in court.

Thornton stressed that the prosecution carried the sole burden of proof and that the defendants were not required to prove anything.

The judge directed the jury to consider each of the eight counts separately and warned them against allowing extraneous considerations to influence their decision.

She specifically instructed jurors to disregard the Nigerian political context, media coverage, cultural practices, and assumptions about wealth or gender roles, as well as the involvement of international oil companies.

She also cautioned the jury not to speculate about individuals named in the indictment who were not standing trial, including Kolawole Aluko, Olajide Omokore, Benedict Peters, Igho Sanomi, Kevin Okyere, and Prince Momoh, stressing that their guilt or innocence is not for consideration in the case.

On several counts, the judge outlined the legal tests the jury must apply, including whether Alison-Madueke accepted financial or other advantages and whether such acceptance was improper.

She instructed that local customs or practices in Nigeria must be disregarded when assessing impropriety, and the defendant’s personal belief about her conduct was not relevant to the legal standard.

On other counts, the jury was directed to determine whether alleged benefits were passed to Alison-Madueke through intermediaries and whether she knew such acceptance was improper.

On one charge relating to alleged payments intended to influence business decisions involving Emmanuel Kachikwu, jurors were told that if they concluded the accused acted as an informant, they must return a not guilty verdict.

The judge also reminded the jury that Alison-Madueke and a co-defendant were of good character and had no previous convictions, a factor they were entitled to take into account.

She stated that the passage of time since the alleged offences might have placed the defence at a disadvantage, including potential loss of witnesses and documentary evidence.

Following the judge’s directions, lead prosecutor, Alexandra Healy KC, began her closing submissions, telling the jury that Alison-Madueke, as Nigeria’s petroleum minister at the time, occupied a position of significant public trust, while businessmen seeking lucrative oil contracts with state-owned entities allegedly provided her with benefits.

The prosecution argued that it was wholly improper for a sitting minister to have her lifestyle funded by individuals doing business with the Nigerian state.

Healy challenged the defence’s claim that all benefits were reimbursed in Nigeria, stating that despite being aware of an investigation for nearly a decade, no documentary evidence of reimbursement has been produced and no such claim has been raised in earlier police interviews.

On specific allegations, the prosecution highlighted a £1 million payment linked to businessman Benedict Peters, describing the use of intermediary structures as an “extraordinary device” designed to conceal the true nature of the transaction.

It also pointed to financial arrangements involving alleged card payments and dollar accounts used to facilitate personal spending, supported by documentary and messaging evidence said to have been recovered during investigations.

The prosecution further argued that digital communications, including WhatsApp messages, suggested awareness of improper payments and supported the claim that certain transactions were intended as inducements rather than legitimate transfers.

It dismissed a defence suggestion of whistleblowing in relation to one of the defendants, arguing, instead, that the evidence pointed to personal financial motivation.

The prosecution’s closing submissions were expected to continue in the next sitting, after which the jury will retire to consider its verdict on the eight counts.

A decision is anticipated later this week as the long-running case reaches its conclusion.