Ayomide Awe
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to tender evidence of her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London in her ongoing legal battle with the anti-graft agency.
The EFCC, in a further counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the former minister’s application, argued that the June 17, 2026, decision of the United Kingdom court had no material bearing on the issues before the Nigerian court.
The commission consequently asked Justice Inyang Ekwo to discountenance Diezani’s further and supplementary affidavit seeking to introduce the UK judgment into the proceedings.
The development came as the former minister continues her legal challenge against the EFCC’s moves involving assets and personal effects allegedly connected to her.
Diezani had approached the Federal High Court seeking, among other reliefs, to challenge the commission’s public notice concerning the auction or sale of properties and personal effects which she claims affect her proprietary rights.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, has the EFCC as the sole respondent.
The former minister had earlier obtained permission from Justice Ekwo to file additional evidence following her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court, London, over bribery allegations.
The application was not opposed by the EFCC when it was initially moved in court, prompting the judge to grant the prayer.
However, after Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit was filed, the anti-graft agency filed a counter-affidavit challenging the relevance of the new evidence.
In the counter-affidavit dated October 5, 2026, and deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in the law firm of EFCC counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, the commission maintained that the UK proceedings were unrelated to the substantive case before the Nigerian court.
Ekienabor stated that some of the depositions contained in Diezani’s application were “misleading, immaterial and irrelevant” to the issues requiring determination by the Federal High Court.
He argued that the proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court and Diezani’s subsequent acquittal concerned proceedings that were not before any Nigerian court.
According to him, the foreign judgment could not be introduced to expand the scope of the Nigerian proceedings.
The EFCC litigation officer also challenged Diezani’s reference to properties allegedly affected by the commission’s public sale notice.
He said there was nothing in the notice indicating that any of the properties listed belonged to the former minister.
He further argued that the forfeiture order in question was limited to jewellery and did not extend to other categories of assets or properties.
“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” Ekienabor argued.
He consequently urged the court to reject the additional affidavit seeking to place the UK acquittal before the court.
Diezani: Acquittal Relevant To Asset Forfeiture Challenge
