EFCC don challenge the move by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to present court documents of a Southwark Crown Court judgment in London, United Kingdom, wey recently discharge and acquit her from corruption charges. The anti-graft agency drop further counter-affidavit to Diezani request to present the UK favorable judgment. EFCC argue say the purported acquittal by foreign criminal court no material or relevant to the specific issues wey dey for determination before the instant court.
Make we recall say Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, been grant permission to Diezani few months ago to present evidence of the London court judgment. The UK court on June 17 discharge and acquit the ex-minister for criminal allegations of bribery wey UK authorities bring against her.
Based on that acquittal, Diezani file suit before Justice Ekwo to reclaim her assets wey forfeit to Nigerian federal government following order of court. For the amended originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, she sue EFCC as sole respondent.
At the last adjourned date, Godwin Iyinbor move motion seeking court permission to file further/supplementary affidavit for purpose of bringing fresh and material development about Diezani acquittal by UK court. After Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN, no raise objection to filing the application, the judge grant Iyinbor prayer.
Upon filing the further/supplementary affidavit, EFCC respond with further counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo law firm. EFCC oppose Diezani request to present the evidence.
When the case call on Tuesday, Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, wey appear for Diezani, tell court say matter slated for hearing of EFCC preliminary objection and their originating motion. She however tell court say commission just serve them with motion before hearing start. Uwe say the motion na respondent further counter-affidavit to their further/supplementary affidavit. She also remind court about their motion to regularise their processes.
Responding, court adjourn till November 11 for hearing of the motions. EFCC for its further counter-affidavit, dated and filed October 5, state say some depositions in Diezani application misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to substantive issues for determination in her present suit.
‘The proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, and the purported acquittal of the applicant therein, are in respect of a proceeding that is not being prosecuted before any Nigerian court and have nothing to do with the substantive suit before this honourable court.’ That na wetin EFCC counter-affidavit talk. According to the litigation officer, nothing dey for public sale notice indicating say any of the properties listed inside belong to the applicant, Diezani.
Ekienabor submit say the order for forfeiture relate exclusively to items of jewelry and no extend to any other category of assets or properties. He argue say parties no permitted to expand scope of matter before court. ‘The applicant further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,’ he talk. He pray court to discountenance Diezani further/supplementary affidavit wey seek to present evidence of her acquittal in UK court.
Diezani been in 10-ground motion filed by Prof. Mike Ozekhome challenge among other things the public notice wey EFCC issue for public auction/sale of properties and/or personal effects affecting her proprietary rights. ‘A major plank of the applicant case before this honourable court is that the respondent had sought to visit the applicant with grave proprietary consequences without conviction, without fair hearing, and without strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions regulating forfeiture, management and disposal of properties,’ the lawyer talk.
The lawyer talk say Diezani file her amended originating motion on February 19, 2025, pursuant to the leave of court granted on February 17, 2025. ‘After the filing of the applicant processes and while this suit was still pending before this honourable court, a subsequent and material event occurred, to wit: the applicant was acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, on June 17, 2026, of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her, a proceeding of obvious material relevance to the allegations repeatedly referenced in relation to the applicant.’
He talk say the said subsequent development material and relevant to applicant case, particularly as e relate to issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation, and need for strict compliance with statutory safeguards before disposal of properties affecting applicant proprietary rights.
He talk say ex-minister no seek by this application to invite court to sit on appeal over the foreign decision or to treat same as automatically conclusive of Nigerian proceedings. He however talk say na to place before court subsequent material fact wey go assist court in doing substantial justice.
According to Ozekhome, the said fact no dey available at the time applicant file her earlier processes and could not have been pleaded or deposed to earlier. He submit say court get power and discretion to allow party to file application where such facts go assist court in just determination of issues before it. While submit say commission no go prejudiced by grant of application, he urge court to grant application in interest of justice.
