The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has opposed former Petroleum Resources Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to rely on her recent acquittal by a United Kingdom court in a Nigerian case involving assets forfeited to the Federal Government.
The anti-graft agency urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject the former minister’s further application, arguing that the June 17 judgment of the Southwark Crown Court in London was not relevant to the issues before the Nigerian court.
Diezani is challenging the forfeiture and subsequent disposal of assets linked to her in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, in which the EFCC is the sole respondent.
Her legal team sought to place the UK judgment before Justice Inyang Ekwo as a subsequent development that could assist the court in determining her challenge to the forfeiture proceedings.
The Southwark Crown Court in London had on June 17, 2026, discharged and acquitted Diezani of bribery allegations brought against her by British prosecutors.
The former minister had faced six counts involving allegations of accepting bribes and conspiracy to commit bribery relating to her period as Nigeria’s petroleum minister between 2010 and 2015.
Diezani has maintained that she did not accept bribes or exercise direct control over the award of government contracts during her time in office.
Following her acquittal, her lawyers sought to introduce the judgment into the Nigerian proceedings, arguing that the development was relevant to issues including the absence of a conviction, fair hearing and the propriety of the forfeiture of her properties.
The EFCC, however, has maintained that the Nigerian proceedings are separate from the criminal case determined by the British court.
In its further counter-affidavit filed on October 5, the commission argued that the proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court were not proceedings before a Nigerian court and had no bearing on the substantive issues in the Abuja case.
The commission also described some of the claims contained in Diezani’s further affidavit as misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the matter before Justice Ekwo.
According to the EFCC, the assets at the centre of the Nigerian proceedings were covered by final forfeiture orders issued by Nigerian courts and those orders have not been set aside.
The commission said the disputed properties were disposed of pursuant to final forfeiture orders made by Justice C.A. Obiozor on July 9, 2019, and Justice I.N. Oweibo on September 10, 2019.
It further argued that public notices had been published before the final orders were made, inviting interested persons to show cause why the assets should not be forfeited.
The EFCC therefore maintained that the sale of the properties was carried out pursuant to existing court orders and in accordance with due process.
Diezani’s position is different, as she has asked the court to order the EFCC to retrieve properties allegedly sold to third parties.
Through her lawyers, she has argued that the commission commenced the disposal of assets linked to her without giving her a fair opportunity to be heard.
She has also alleged that some of the forfeiture orders were obtained through misrepresentation, suppression and non-disclosure of material facts.
The former minister has further argued that she has never been convicted of any unlawful activity that could justify the forfeiture of her properties.
She also told the court that she had been outside Nigeria since 2015 while undergoing medical treatment and that she was not served with relevant court processes.
Another aspect of her argument concerns the standard of proof used in the forfeiture proceedings, with her legal team maintaining that the orders were made under a civil standard rather than the stricter standard applicable to criminal allegations.
The EFCC, meanwhile, has pointed to criminal proceedings instituted against Diezani in Nigerian courts following investigations into her activities while she served as a public official.
The commission cited charges including proceedings before the Federal High Court and the Adamawa State High Court as part of its response to the former minister’s claims.
The dispute therefore involves two related but legally distinct issues: Diezani’s criminal prosecution history and the separate Nigerian proceedings concerning the forfeiture and disposal of assets.
Her UK acquittal does not by itself determine the outcome of the Nigerian asset-forfeiture case, and the Federal High Court has yet to rule on whether the judgment can be admitted and what evidential weight, if any, it should carry.
The latest proceedings also revealed a procedural disagreement over the volume and timing of fresh filings submitted by the parties.
EFCC lawyer Paul Mgbeoma expressed concern about the frequency of Diezani’s new court processes, while her legal team maintained its applications were necessary to place the latest developments before the court.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until November 11, when the pending applications are scheduled to be heard.
Until then, the court has not made a determination on Diezani’s request to rely on the UK judgment or on her broader claims seeking the recovery of the forfeited assets.
The outcome could determine how the former minister’s acquittal in the United Kingdom is treated within her ongoing legal battle in Nigeria.
For now, the EFCC is asking the court to keep the focus on the Nigerian forfeiture proceedings and existing orders, while Diezani’s legal team is seeking to place her UK acquittal before the court as a material subsequent development.