Trial Exposes Web of Deception
The bribery trial of former Nigerian oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke at London’s Southwark Crown Court this week shifted focus, as witness testimony painted a complex picture of luxury transactions while the defence methodically challenged the prosecution’s narrative, centering on the alleged duplicity of businessman Kola Aluko. The proceedings, now in their second week, have highlighted a case built not on direct evidence of corruption, but on inference, faded memories, and the contested motivations of a key figure who appears increasingly unreliable.
The week began with the defence continuing its rigorous dissection of the prosecution’s property-related allegations. On Thursday, contractor Tony Mulcahy, whose company Bear Rock Construction performed multi-million-pound renovations on London properties, endured a forceful cross-examination. His testimony became a pivotal vehicle for the defence to uncouple Alison-Madueke from direct benefit and instruction. Mulcahy confirmed under oath that Alison-Madueke “never paid a penny” to his firm and that a key Marylebone property, Harley House, “had nothing to do with Mrs. Madueke, but with Aluko.”
More damningly for the prosecution, Mulcahy unraveled a pattern of deception by Kola Aluko. He admitted to being “confused by what Aluko was telling him” and directly confirmed that Aluko had lied about Alison-Madueke’s family to justify construction work at another property, Chester Close North. The defence presented a relentless trail of emails from 2011 to 2014 showing Mulcahy chasing Aluko for debts exceeding £400,000, financial strife that ultimately destroyed Bear Rock Construction. This portrait painted Aluko not as a faithful associate of the minister, but as an independently operating, financially erratic dealmaker who freely used her name without requisite authority.
Mulcahy’s testimony constructed an alternative role for Alison-Madueke: that of a dispute-resolution intermediary. He stated it was she who attempted to assist him during his breakdown in dealings with Aluko, introducing him to her lawyer to help retrieve owed monies. This depiction, subtly advanced by the defence, stands in stark contrast to the prosecution’s image of a bribe-demanding principal.
Friday’s session turned to the lavish shopping expeditions, with Jon Taverner, former manager of the luxury Mayfair store Thomas Goode, taking the stand. His testimony acknowledged Alison-Madueke as a polite client who visited with an entourage, a practice he called common for high-net-worth individuals. He identified Kola Aluko and fellow businessman Benedict Peters as the figures who would pay for goods intended for “Madam.” When asked if the minister ever paid herself, Taverner replied, “Not that I recall.”
The prosecution presented emails between Taverner and Aluko discussing Alison-Madueke’s requests, aiming to tether the businessmen’s payments directly to her benefit. Yet, Taverner’s evidence contained nuances the defence is poised to exploit. He noted items were sometimes paid for but remained in store “for quite a while,” and recounted Alison-Madueke’s own offhand remark about one purchase: “I don’t know why I’m buying this, I don’t have the room for it.” These details, the defence will argue, suggest a casual, non-possessory relationship to the goods, consistent with her alleged role in sourcing items for property projects for associates, not personal enrichment.
The day also underscored the investigation’s frailties. Steve Hill, former manager of Harley House, gave uncertain testimony, recalling only a “black female” visitor arriving in a Rolls Royce around 2012/2013 but could not confirm she entered the specific flat in question. He stated he was never asked by investigators to identify anyone. Meanwhile, a written statement from chauffeur Azmat Khan asserted he had never met, driven, or seen Alison-Madueke with the businessmen named in the case.
Throughout, the defence’s foundational argument has remained pointed: this is a case of inference, not proof. They contend that all expenditures, from luxury shopping to private jet travel, were reimbursed from official or private Nigerian sources. A process, they stress, that has been rendered impossible to document because crucial evidence has been lost or degraded over the 11-year span of the investigation, leaving their client at a “severe disadvantage.” They further highlight the conspicuous absence of criminal charges against the alleged bribe-givers, including Aluko, who remains a fugitive.
The portrait of Kola Aluko emerging from the courtroom is harsh and unambiguous: a man described as a serial liar, whose speech would develop a stutter when being untruthful; a debtor whose financial negligence bankrupted contractors; and a manipulative figure who allegedly wove a web of property deceptions, misusing Alison-Madueke’s name and status to suit his own ends. The defence suggests it is Aluko’s shadowy operations, not the minister’s instructions, that properly explain the flow of money and goods.
As the trial progresses, the central challenge for the prosecution is crystallizing. They must convince the jury that the circumstantial chain of luxury, paid for by businessmen who benefited from Nigerian oil contracts, leads inexorably to corrupt intent within Alison-Madueke’s mind. The defence, in turn, is weaving a narrative of lost context, cultural practice, bureaucratic reimbursement, and the exploitation of a public figure’s name by a deceitful associate. With the cross-examination of Taverner set to continue, the battle over the interpretation of these luxury transactions, as bribes or as facilitated purchases for others, will define the coming weeks. The case, projected to last up to twelve weeks, continues to hinge not on what was seen, but on what it is believed to mean.
