Key Takeaways
- The Federal High Court in Abuja granted Diezani Alison‑Madueke’s lawyer leave to file a supplementary affidavit evidencing her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London on 17 June 2026.
- The acquittal concerns bribery allegations that were central to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) efforts to forfeit her assets in Nigeria.
- Diezani’s suit seeks to reclaim properties and personal effects that the EFCC had earmarked for public auction, arguing that forfeiture proceeded without conviction, fair hearing, or strict statutory compliance.
- The amended originating motion (FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023) names the EFCC as the sole respondent and was filed after the court granted leave on 17 February 2025.
- The supplementary affidavit is intended to bring a “subsequent and material fact” – the UK acquittal – before the Nigerian court to assist in delivering substantial justice.
- EFCC counsel acknowledged service of the application but argued it was merely an attempt to waste judicial time; however, they did not object when asked by the judge.
- Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the motion, adjourned the case to 6 October 2025, and directed that the preliminary objection and substantive suit be heard together.
- Legal experts note that the UK acquittal, while not automatically binding in Nigeria, is highly relevant to issues of conviction, due process, and the propriety of irreversible asset deprivation.
- The outcome could set a precedent for how Nigerian courts treat foreign acquittals in domestic forfeiture proceedings, balancing international legal cooperation with sovereign asset‑recovery efforts.
Background on Diezani Alison‑Madueke and the EFCC Case
Diezani Alison‑Madueke, former Minister of Petroleum Resources under President Goodluck Jonathan, has been a focal point of anti‑corruption investigations in Nigeria for over a decade. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) initiated multiple probes alleging illicit enrichment, money‑laundering, and bribery linked to oil‑sector contracts. As part of its asset‑recovery mandate, the EFCC issued public notices indicating its intention to auction or sell certain properties and personal effects believed to be proceeds of unlawful conduct. Diezani contested these actions, asserting that the EFCC lacked a lawful basis to seize her assets without a criminal conviction or adherence to due‑process safeguards. Her legal challenge seeks to halt the auction and recover the seized items, framing the dispute as a protection of proprietary rights against executive overreach.
Details of the UK Acquittal
On 17 June 2026, the Southwark Crown Court in London delivered a verdict discharging and acquitting Diezani Alison‑Madueke of all criminal allegations of bribery that had been brought against her in the United Kingdom. The proceedings, which spanned several months, examined evidence related to alleged corrupt payments in connection between Diezani and offshore entities. The judge concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a formal acquittal. This judgment was widely reported in both UK and Nigerian media, and it became a pivotal factual development in Diezani’s ongoing Nigerian litigation, as it directly contradicts the premise underlying the EFCC’s forfeiture actions.
The Nigerian Suit to Reclaim Forfeited Assets
In response to the EFCC’s public notice of impending auction, Diezani filed an originating motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to reclaim her forfeited assets. The suit, originally instituted earlier in 2025, challenges the EFCC’s authority to proceed with the sale of her properties and personal effects. Diezani’s core argument rests on the assertion that the EFCC acted without a conviction, without affording her a fair hearing, and without strict compliance with the statutory regime governing the forfeiture, management, and disposal of properties suspected of being proceeds of crime. By framing the matter as a violation of proprietary rights and procedural fairness, she aims to obtain an injunction preventing the auction and a declaration that any attempted forfeiture is null and void.
The Amended Originating Motion and Its Legal Basis
On 19 February 2025, Diezani’s counsel, Professor Mike Ozekhome (SAN), filed an amended originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, naming the EFCC as the sole respondent. The amendment followed a grant of leave by the court on 17 February 2025. The motion outlines ten grounds of contention, chief among them being the EFCC’s alleged failure to observe the procedural requirements of the Assets (Forfeiture) Act and related regulations. Diezani’s legal team contends that the agency’s actions constitute an abusive exercise of power, depriving her of property without the prerequisite of a criminal conviction or a fair trial, thereby breaching both constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and statutory safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary asset seizure.
The Motion to Present Evidence of the UK Acquittal
Recognizing that a material change in circumstances had occurred after the initial filing, Diezani’s lawyer, Godwin Iyinbor, moved the court on 25 June 2025 for permission to file a further/supplementary affidavit. The affidavit seeks to place before the court the formal record of Diezani’s acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court. Iyinbor argued that this subsequent fact is “fresh and material” because it directly impacts the central issues of conviction, due process, and the propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation. He further requested that the affidavit be deemed properly filed, emphasizing that the UK judgment was not available at the time of the original pleadings and could not have been anticipated or deposed to earlier.
Arguments from Diezani’s Counsel
Professor Ozekhome, supporting the supplementary affidavit, asserted that the court possesses inherent discretion to admit new evidence that would assist in the just determination of the issues before it. He maintained that the acquittal is not being offered as an automatic bar to the Nigerian proceedings; rather, it is presented as a contextual fact that illuminates the absence of a criminal conviction—a prerequisite the EFCC allegedly overlooked. Ozekhome stressed that admitting the affidavit aligns with the interest of justice, enabling the court to weigh whether the EFCC’s forfeiture actions were procedurally sound in light of an overseas judicial finding of innocence. He also noted that the acquittal bears on the broader themes of international legal cooperation and the respect for foreign judgments in domestic forfeiture disputes.
EFCC’s Response and Position
Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, counsel for the EFCC, acknowledged receipt of the application but characterized it as an attempt to “waste the judicial time of the court.” He contended that the motion merely sought to highlight that Diezani had been exonerated in the UK, implying that the affidavit added little substantive value to the Nigerian case. However, when Justice Ekwo inquired whether the EFCC intended to oppose the motion, Oyetibo confirmed that they were not objecting. This concession, while not an endorsement, removed a procedural obstacle and allowed the judge to consider the request on its merits without the need for a contested hearing.
Judge’s Ruling, Adjournment, and Procedural Directions
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the motion as prayed, ordering that the supplementary affidavit be filed and deemed properly filed. The judge then adjourned the matter to 6 October 2025, directing that on that date the preliminary objection and the substantive suit be heard together. This procedural consolidation aims to promote judicial efficiency, ensuring that both the threshold challenge to the court’s jurisdiction and the merits of Diezani’s claim are resolved in a single sitting. The ruling reflects the court’s willingness to accommodate relevant, newly arisen facts while maintaining a disciplined timetable for case resolution.
Implications and Broader Context
The decision to allow the UK acquittal evidence into the Nigerian proceedings carries significance beyond the immediate parties. It underscores a growing trend wherein Nigerian courts consider foreign judicial outcomes when assessing the legitimacy of domestic asset‑forfeiture actions, especially where the underlying allegations are similar. Should the court ultimately find that the EFCC’s forfeiture lacked a conviction and violated due process, the judgment could reinforce procedural safeguards and deter pre‑conviction asset seizures. Conversely, if the court upholds the EFCC’s actions despite the acquittal, it may signal a preference for domestic sovereign authority over foreign judgments in matters of national interest. Either outcome will likely influence future EFCC strategies, defense tactics in high‑profile corruption cases, and the ongoing dialogue between Nigeria and international judicial bodies concerning mutual legal assistance and the recognition of foreign rulings in forfeiture contexts.