Diezani Trial Examines High-End Furniture Purchases
The London trial of Diezani Alison-Madueke, Nigeria’s former Minister of Petroleum Resources, focused on a series of luxury furniture transactions on Monday, with testimony revealing a complex web of aliases, entourages, and third-party payments. The case, unfolding at Southwark Crown Court, centres on whether millions spent on London properties, renovations, and shopping constituted bribes or fell within the ambit of complicated but lawful financial arrangements for a senior Nigerian official.
Monica Glerean, a director at the upmarket Mayfair gallery Vincenzo Caffarella, took the stand as a witness. She described a client she knew first as “D” and later as “Sharon D” or “Sheldon D,” who from 2012 onward selected numerous high-value antiques and furnishings. Glerean confirmed this client was Alison-Madueke. The items, including bespoke lighting, ornate Italian furniture, and decorative objects, were consistently paid for using credit cards belonging to businessman Kola Aluko, a figure central to the allegations.
The prosecution presented invoices to the court, which Glerean confirmed, that illustrated the scale of spending. One, made out to “Sheldon D of St John’s Wood,” totalled £40,320. Another was for £4,200. Over the period, Aluko spent more than £370,000 at the gallery on items Alison-Madueke chose. The prosecution suggested a pattern of increasing boldness, presenting a later invoice for £63,840. Glerean testified that the woman she knew as “D” was always accompanied by a group of people except for her first visit with Aluko. It was this entourage, she said, who provided contact email addresses and who would handle the logistics of payment and collection.
A notable email was shown, sent from the gallery to a “Sharon D” address the day after two large invoices in October 2013, regarding collection by a man named Tony. The email bounced, so a second was sent to a Hotmail account. Glerean stated she never received a reply to any communication sent to these addresses, which she had not obtained from Alison-Madueke directly.
Under cross-examination, the defence explored the nature of these transactions. Glerean agreed that Alison-Madueke herself never personally handed over any money. The defence also highlighted that Aluko visited the store without the minister on several occasions, spending over £300,000 on his own account. Furthermore, they drew attention to Alison-Madueke’s professional background, with Glerean acknowledging the minister had a “good knowledge of furniture”, “was an architect” and was often heard advising Aluko on what would look good in his house.
The defence pointed to occasions where Alison-Madueke’s passport stamps showed that she was out of the United Kingdom during a purchase, though the witness’s memory on specific dates appeared contested. This line of questioning seemed aimed at loosening the direct link between the former minister’s presence and the acquisition of goods for her personal use.
The testimony painted a picture of a somewhat disjointed process. By early 2014, Glerean was sending emails to the “Sharon D” address asking for the collection of items purchased the previous year, receiving no response. She eventually contacted Tony, the same individual referenced in the 2013 email, to ask if storage had been arranged, as she was never given a delivery address. She presumed the items were eventually collected, as they were not stored at the gallery.
Following this evidence, the court moved to address a list of “agreed facts,” uncontested background information that avoids the need for further witness testimony on these points. These facts outlined a series of multi-million-pound London property purchases between 2010 and 2011. They included a home in Gerrards Cross bought by a company linked to businessman Olajide Omokore, and a London flat purchased by a company beneficially owned by Kola Aluko. Another flat was bought by a company linked to businessman Benedict Peters. These properties, the prosecution alleges, were refurbished and made available for the use of Alison-Madueke and her family.
The agreed facts also detailed rental payments for two apartments in St John’s Wood, where Alison-Madueke and her mother lived, paid for by Aluko or his company. The defence does not dispute the use of these properties but contends the arrangements were part of a legitimate, if complex, framework for housing a minister on official business, with appropriate reimbursements handled through Nigerian channels.
The day concluded with the prosecution preparing to call its next witness, Tony Mulchay, a director of the construction firm Bear Rock, which undertook multi-million-pound refurbishments on several of the properties in question. His testimony is expected to provide further detail on the scope of work, the clients who instructed him, and the financial flows that funded these extensive projects.
As the trial progresses, the central conflict is becoming clearer. The prosecution is methodically presenting a paper trail of immense spending it alleges was directed by and for Alison-Madueke, funded by individuals who benefitted from Nigeria’s oil sector during her oversight. The defence, while not yet presenting its full case, is working to establish distance between the minister and the mechanics of payment, to suggest her involvement was at times advisory, and to imply that the full story which might explain these transactions as legitimate has been lost to time, distance, and the absence of crucial records from Nigeria. The jury’s task is to determine whether the evidence points to corrupt enrichment or to the opaque yet accepted realities of a high-ranking official’s life, where personal and professional lines were blurred within a system of cumbersome financial restrictions.
