By Anselm Onoriode
In what many observer have termed a loss of composure capable of harming the prosecution’s case against former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy KC appeared to breach the Bar Standards Board Code by personally attacking the former Petroleum Minister by “suggesting she was lying” during an exchange where the prosecution sought to get Mrs Alison-Madueke to accept that certain luxury items purchased by billionaire businessman, Igho Sanomi, were actually purchased for her.Our correspondent in Court believes that Healy repeatedly asked questions about these items in the hope that Alison Madueke would contradict her narration of events and appeared disappointed when no such contradiction occurred.
Observers believe that Healy resorted to attacking Alison-Madueke as a last-ditch ploy to unsettle her as the prosecution’s efforts to score big points on cross examination faltered.
This exchange occurred a day before Alison-Madueke closed her testimony at the Southwark Crown Court before whom she faces charges on several counts of bribery. Ms Madueke’s testimony lasted 9 days during which she was denied the allegations against her, and told her side of the story for the first time since she was arrested in 2016.
In her testimony, Mrs Alison-Madueke alluded to an arrangement where the cost of items purportedly purchased on her behalf were refunded either by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) or by herself and her family. Mrs Alison-Madueke stated that this arrangement became necessary due to the constitutional restrictions on government officials from operating foreign accounts. She also cited the necessity of the arrangement due to the high failure rate of Nigerian debit or credit cards when used abroad at the time. The arrangement involved several payments being made on her behalf for these items in the United Kingdom and being refunded in Nigeria for these items in the United Kingdom and being refunded in Nigeria. The UK authorities allege that the purchase of these items and the use of luxury properties conferred an unlawful benefit on her despite the same court having cleared Madueke on charges of improper conduct in 2024..
Mrs Alison-Madueke is charged along with her brother, Bishop Doye Agama, who the prosecution alleges received a substantial donation from billionaire oil tycoon, Benedict Peters, to influence the award of oil contracts in his favour.
In the course of her testimony, Mrs Alison-Madueke, scored a number of wins that appear crucial to the success of her defence and which several lawyers state may be crucial to securing a not guilty verdict. One of those wins came at the instance of the prosecution which suggested that as oil minister and fundraiser for the PDP 2015 presidential campaign, Diezani was expected to unlawfully award contracts to the late Senator Ifeanyi Ubah’s company, Capital Oil and Gas Limited. Lead prosecution counsel read out a letter written by Sen. Ubah to former President Goodluck Jonathan that suggested that the petroleum minister had been instructed to facilitate the award of contracts to the business mogul. However, the letter stated that she had refused to do so.
Another big win was the failure of the prosecution to tie up critical parts of its allegations that Peters made substantial donations to Bishop Agama’s ministry to influence the award of lucrative contracts in Peters’ favour. In this instance, although the prosecution provided evidence of Peters’ contributions to Bishop Agama’s church, the prosecution was unable to substantiate its allegation that this was done for Mrs Alison-Madueke’s benefit and did not do much to controvert her testimony that she was not responsible for the pair meeting each other and striking up a friendship. Mrs Alison-Madueke referred to the prosecution’s evidence to show that along with donations to Bishop Agama’s ministry, Peters also made substantial donations to several other churches.
These wins in addition to several prosecution witness contradicting the prosecution’s position over the course of the trial, the prosecution’s inability to tie up this vitals points to its case and the inability to get Mrs Alison-Madueke to admit that the items under review on the day were purchased for her benefit appear to have pushed Healy into attacking Alison-Madueke.
This included a prosecution witness admitting that Alison-Madueke appeared knowledgeable about furniture and architecture and looked like she only advised the named individuals on items to purchase for their homes; another witness stating that several of the items purchased were paid for, delivered and stored at the houses of the named individuals. A substantial contradiction was the fact that several of the items for which Alison-Madueke stands trial were purchased while she was not in the United Kingdom, with no evidence eventually being provided to link these items to her.
Crucially, Healy did not proffer any evidence to substantiate the allegation that Alison-Madueke was lying under oath.
On re-examination by lead defence counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw KC, Mrs Alison-Madueke stuck to her guns and reiterated that she did not accept bribes from the individuals named in the charges. She repeated her defence that constitutional and banking constraints caused her to resort to the arrangements and that the named individuals were fully reimbursed either by NNPC in the case of official expenses or by herself and her family in the case of personal expenditure.
The trial continues.