The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has opposed the application filed by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to present evidence of her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court, London in UK.
EFCC, in a further counter-affidavit to Diezani’s request, prayed Justice Inyang Ekwo to dismiss the application.
The commission argued that the purported acquittal of Diezani by a foreign criminal court was not material or relevant to the specific issues for determination before the instant court.
On July 1, Justice Ekwo granted the application filed by the ex-minister to present evidence of the London court.
The judge had granted the motion on notice moved by lawyer who appeared for Diezani, Godwin Iyinbor, after it was not challenged by the EFCC’s counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN.
The UK court had, on June 17, discharged and acquitted the embattled former minister in respect of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her.
Against this development, Diezani, in a suit filed before Justice Ekwo, sought to reclaim her forfeited assets.
In the amended originating motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, she sued the EFCC as sole respondent.
On the last adjourned date, Iyinbor had moved a motion seeking the permission to file a further/supplementary affidavit for the purpose of bringing fresh and material development with respect to Diezani’s acquittal by the UK court.
After Oyetibo did not raise objection to filing the application, the judge granted Iyinbor’s prayer.
Meanwhile, after Diezani’s lawyer filed her further/supplementary affidavit, the anti-graft agency responded.
In a further counter-affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, the EFCC opposed Diezani’s request to present the evidence.
When the case was called on Tuesday, Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, who appeared for Diezani, informed the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and their originating motion.
She, however, told the court that the commission had just served them with a motion prior to the commencement of hearing.
Uwe said the motion was the respondent’s further counter-affidavit to their further/supplementary affidavit.
She equally reminded the court of their motion to regularise their processes.
Responding, Paul Mgbeoma, counsel for the respondent, expressed surprise at which Diezani kept filing processes in the matter as though it was an election petition case.
Mgbeoma then told the court that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
Justice Ekwo consequently fixed Nov. 11 for hearing of the motions.
In EFCC’s further counter-affidavit, dated and filed October 5, Ekienabor averred that some of the depositions in Diezani’s application were misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the 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.”
According to the litigation officer, there is nothing in the public sale notice indicating that any of the properties listed therein belong to the applicant (Diezani).
Ekienabor submitted that “the order for forfeiture relates exclusively to items of jewelry and does not extend to any other category of assets or properties.”
He argued that parties are not permitted to expand the scope of a matter before a court.
“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” he said.
He, therefore, prayed the court to discountenance Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit seeking to present evidence of her acquittal in the UK court.
In the 10-ground argument filed by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, Diezani said she commenced the suit challenging, among other things, the public notice issued by the EFCC for the public auction/sale of properties and/or personal effects affecting her proprietary rights.
“A major plank of the applicant’s 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 said Diezani filed her amended originating motion February 19, 2025, pursuant to the leave of the court granted on February 17, 2025.
“After the filing of the applicant’s 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 17th June, 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.
“The said subsequent development is material and relevant to the applicant’s case, particularly as it relates to the issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation, and the need for strict compliance with statutory safeguards before disposal of properties affecting the applicant’s proprietary rights.”
He said the ex-minister did not seek by this application to invite the court to sit on appeal over the said foreign decision or to treat same as automatically conclusive of the Nigerian proceedings.
He, however, said it was to place before the court subsequent material fact which would assist the court in doing substantial justice.
According to Ozekhome, the said fact was not available at the time the applicant filed her earlier processes and could not have been pleaded or deposed to earlier.
He submitted that the court had the power and discretion to allow a party to file the application where such facts would assist the court in the just determination of the issues before it.
He said EFCC would not be prejudiced by the grant of the application.
He said it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application.
