Diezani's London trial: defence claims evidence is missing and prosecution is selective.

• Questions missing evidence, attacks EFCC credibility, asks why alleged bribe‑givers remain free

The trial of former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison‑Madueke took a dramatic turn yesterday at Southwark Crown Court in London when her lead counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw, KC, launched a broad attack on the prosecution’s case.

Laidlaw accused investigators of relying on questionable evidence, practising selective prosecution, and failing to preserve critical material that could have aided the former minister’s defence.

The hearing marked the start of the defence’s closing submissions in a case that has attracted worldwide attention and remains one of the most closely watched corruption trials involving a former Nigerian public official.

Addressing the jury, Laidlaw portrayed the prosecution as fundamentally unfair, asking why several wealthy oil businessmen alleged to have paid bribes have never been charged, while Alison‑Madueke has spent years fighting criminal allegations in the United Kingdom.

The senior defence lawyer specifically named businessmen Kola Aluko, Jide Omokore, Benedict Peters, Igho Sanomi and Kevin Okyere, arguing that although prosecutors have identified them as central figures in the alleged bribery scheme, they continue to live freely without prosecution.

“One can be forgiven whether parliament, in its wisdom, when enacting the Bribery Act, could have contemplated this absurd situation where the people who are alleged to have paid the bribes are free, while the accused has been held prisoner for 11 years,” Laidlaw told the jury.

His remarks were intended to reinforce the defence’s long‑standing argument that the prosecution has unfairly isolated Alison‑Madueke while refusing to pursue those alleged to have made the payments at the centre of the case.

The defence also mounted a direct challenge to the handling of evidence by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), raising concerns about the integrity and reliability of material relied upon by prosecutors.

Laidlaw informed the court that officers of the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency were absent when Alison‑Madueke’s Abuja residence was searched in October 2015, and that none of the items allegedly recovered during the operation were photographed in their original locations.

According to him, the NCA does not even possess the original materials now being relied upon in court.

He further alleged that crucial documents that could have supported Alison‑Madueke’s defence have disappeared, including records of reimbursements and official documentation linked to her ministerial duties.

“If the position were not so serious, it would be laughable,” Laidlaw said while criticising the evidential gaps.

In one of the most pointed moments of the proceedings, the defence accused prosecutors of taking contradictory positions regarding the credibility of the EFCC.

Laidlaw argued that the prosecution is willing to rely heavily on EFCC‑generated evidence against Alison‑Madueke, while simultaneously dismissing EFCC correspondence tendered in support of co‑defendant Olatimbo Ayinde as unreliable.

“Either you trust the EFCC, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways,” he said.

The defence also disputed prosecution claims concerning ministerial records and diaries.

Laidlaw dismissed as “arrant nonsense” testimony suggesting that no ministerial diaries existed, insisting that such records would have shown Alison‑Madueke’s official movements and provided evidence of reimbursements relevant to several allegations before the court.

Observers noted that the defence strategy appeared carefully crafted to raise doubts about the consistency, preservation and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence before the case is handed to the jury for deliberations later this week.

Earlier in the day, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy, KC, concluded the prosecution’s closing submissions by revisiting allegations involving several Nigerian oil executives and associates linked to the former minister.

On Count 3, concerning an alleged conspiracy involving Alison‑Madueke and her brother, the prosecution focused on a £1 million payment allegedly made by businessman Benedict Peters shortly after a mortgage on a London property was cleared.

Healy argued that the funds were channelled through a defunct furniture company instead of being paid directly to Agama’s church, describing the arrangement as an “extraordinary device” allegedly designed to disguise the payment.

The prosecution also maintained that certain oil executives provided improper benefits to Alison‑Madueke while their companies benefited from lucrative state contracts during her tenure as petroleum minister.

Regarding the charges involving Ayinde, prosecutors rejected her whistle‑blower defence, arguing that her demand for reimbursement only emerged after she allegedly failed to secure the reinstatement of Prince Momoh at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.

Despite the prosecution’s allegations, much of the courtroom attention shifted to the defence’s forceful challenge to the integrity of the investigation itself, particularly the handling of evidence originating from Nigeria.

The trial continues with Laidlaw’s closing speech before the jury retires to consider its verdict.