Defence Highlights Missing Witnesses and Evidence Gaps
The bribery trial of former Nigerian oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke entered its fourth day at the Crown Court in Southwark, with the defence intensifying its focus on missing evidence and the conspicuous absence of key individuals from the dock. As the prosecution began to present its detailed evidence of lavish spending, the defence team pointed to what they described as critical holes in the case, echoing themes raised in their opening statement the day before.
Jonathan Laidlaw KC, for Alison-Madueke, reminded the jury of the unique challenges faced by the defence. Meanwhile, Tom Price KC representing Doye Agama, Alison-Madueke’s brother and a co-defendant, noted that his client was attending proceedings via video link due to health reasons and faces only one charge related to church donations. “There is nothing unusual about donations being made by wealthy people to charitable organisations,” Price stated, framing the issue for the jury to decide.
In his own remarks, Jonathan Lennon KC representing co-defendant Olatimbo Ayinde, charged with two counts, highlighted that the prosecution’s own case alleges Ayinde acted with Prince Haruna Momoh, the former managing director of the Nigerian Pipelines Product Marketing Company (PPMC). “Why is he not in the dock?” Lennon asked. Similarly, he noted that Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, Alison-Madueke’s successor as petroleum minister who is implicated in a separate bribery count, is also absent. All three defence barristers argued that the inability to cross-examine these central figures constitutes a significant disadvantage.
Ayinde’s barrister stated Ayinde denies making any payments to benefit Alison-Madueke, claiming that any transactions from her company accounts were made by Prince Momoh without her knowledge. Regarding the charge that she bribed Kachikwu, Lennon asserted she was the victim of extortion by Kachikwu’s brother, Dumebi, and was attempting to act as a whistleblower within a corrupt system.
The jury, composed of four men and eight women, then heard from the first factual witness, Amina Hamila, a private client manager at Harrods. Hamila, who made her initial statement to the National Crime Agency in 2017, testified about facilitating extensive purchases for a client she knew as “Madam Diezani” between 2011 and 2014.
Led by prosecutor Alexandra Healy KC, Hamila described a pattern where shopping was often paid for by others, primarily businessman Kolawole Aluko and later Prince Momoh. She testified that Alison-Madueke and Aluko would visit the store together, with Alison-Madueke appearing to be the “dominant party.” Financial records showed hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on luxury goods, furniture, and homeware, often using Aluko’s or, later, Ayinde’s Harrods reward cards.
The court viewed emails concerning a major furniture order in November 2013, valued at over £300,000 and paid for by Aluko. The correspondence revealed logistical nightmares, with items stuck in transit for months and storage charges accruing. Notably, an email from Hamila instructed a colleague that the client should be referenced as Aluko, and “DAM should not be referenced,” a point the prosecution emphasised.
Under cross-examination by Laidlaw, Hamila acknowledged the limitations of her memory, given the eight year gap since her statement, and the more than 10 year gap since the events in question. He systematically challenged the inference that Alison-Madueke was always present or directly involved in the transactions for which she allegedly received a benefit.
Using passport records, Laidlaw identified multiple occasions between 2011 and 2013 where large purchases were logged against Alison-Madueke’s reward card on dates she was out of the United Kingdom. He suggested that Aluko could have been buying items for his own wife or others, simply accruing reward points to Alison-Madueke’s account—a common practice among high net worth individuals at the store.
Laidlaw also established that Alison-Madueke, as a minister, travelled with an entourage, and would not have been present at the payment counter. Therefore, she might have been unaware of which payment method or card was used for her selections, including when Momoh began using a card linked to Ayinde’s companies.
“This evidence demonstrates the precariousness of drawing direct conclusions,” Laidlaw implied, linking this to his opening argument that the defence is hamstrung by missing documentation and witnesses. He had previously told the jury that records which would have shown reimbursements for expenses had been lost in Nigeria after successive political regime changes.
The day’s testimony concluded with the prosecution indicating that amended charges would be circulated, suggesting the case’s precise legal boundaries are still being refined. The trial will resume on Monday with further witnesses.
The proceedings continue to underscore the defence’s core contention, as reported in the Daily Times, that this is a case “mired in delay, fought in a foreign jurisdiction, and crippled by the absence of critical evidence and witnesses.” The defence maintains that the lack of material evidence from Nigeria and the non-appearance of alleged co conspirators like Momoh and Kachikwu fundamentally undermine the prosecution’s ability to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
