Former Nigerian oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, Jonathan Laidlaw, rejected the allegations that she exercised decisive control over major oil sector deals, saying she was just a ‘rubber stamp’ when she served as oil minister in the Goodluck Jonathan administration.
He told jurors at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday that Mrs Alison-Madueke did not have the authority to award lucrative government contracts.
Mr Laidlaw told the court that, as a minister, her role was to approve oil and gas agreements granted by the government.
Reuters reported that he described her as a mere “rubber stamp” for official recommendations. However, many Nigerian observers have described her as one of the two most powerful ministers in the administration.
Mrs Alison-Madueke served as Nigeria’s oil minister from 2010 to 2015 under the Jonathan administration. She also chaired the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 2014–2015. She fled to London after the Peoples Democratic Party lost the 2015 presidential election.
In the UK, the former minister is on trial on corruption charges, having been charged in 2023 with five counts of accepting bribes and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery.
UK authorities say the charges are linked to the award of oil and gas contracts during her tenure as petroleum minister.
But she has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including accepting bribes and conspiracy to commit bribery.
It was reported on Tuesday that she received high-end properties and vast quantities of luxury goods from people who “clearly believed she would use her influence to favour them.”
Mrs Alison-Madueke was said to have “lived a lavish lifestyle in London.”
But Mr Laidlaw said the purchases were made on Mrs Alison-Madueke’s behalf because Nigerian ministers are prohibited from having bank accounts abroad.
He stated that Mrs Alison-Madueke challenges claims regarding the number of properties made available to her and the value of the items she allegedly received.
Mr Laidlaw insisted that any money spent on her personal benefit would be fully repaid.
He explained that personal costs were reimbursed by Mrs Alison-Madueke from Nigeria, while expenditures related to official duties were covered by public funds; therefore, she did not gain any personal financial benefit.
“If there was any financial advantage, it was to Nigeria, enabling the Minister for Petroleum Resources to undertake her ministerial business, and there was, of course, nothing improper about it,” he was quoted as saying.
He asked the jurors to consider whether she actually had any real power to influence which companies secured those contracts.
He stated that the former minister simply endorsed decisions proposed by senior civil servants.
Her lawyer also conceded that Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer and one of the largest globally, has for decades struggled with widespread corruption.
Mrs Alison-Madueke’s UK trial started on Monday and is expected to run for several weeks.
The trial could carry significant penalties if she is convicted. Under the UK Bribery Act, she can face up to 10 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
In Nigeria, the courts have ordered the forfeiture of properties worth billions of naira linked to Mrs Alison-Madueke. The anti-graft agency, EFCC, argues that it has evidence of her roles in several corruption cases. However, her absence from the country has stalled her prosecution.
FOLLOW US ON:
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
PINTEREST
TIKTOK
YOUTUBE
LINKEDIN
TUMBLR
INSTAGRAM
