…Court Fixes Nov. 11 for Hearing
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has kicked against former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s bid to present evidence of her acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London, insisting that the UK judgment is irrelevant to the issues before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The anti-graft agency, in a further counter-affidavit filed in response to Diezani’s application, urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to dismiss the request, arguing that the purported acquittal by a foreign criminal court had no material bearing on the substantive issues in the Nigerian suit.
The court consequently adjourned the matter until November 11, 2026, for hearing of the pending motions.
Diezani is challenging actions by the EFCC relating to the forfeiture and proposed sale of assets allegedly connected to her.
The former minister had sought permission to place before the court the June 17, 2026 decision of the Southwark Crown Court, which discharged and acquitted her of criminal allegations of bribery in the United Kingdom.
Justice Ekwo had earlier granted the application after Diezani’s counsel, Godwin Iyinbor, moved the motion on notice. The application was not opposed at the time by EFCC counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN.
However, after Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit was filed, the commission filed a counter-affidavit opposing the move.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Diezani’s counsel, Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, told the court that the matter had been scheduled for hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the originating motion.
She, however, informed the court that the commission had served them with a fresh motion shortly before the proceedings commenced.
Uwe said the new process was the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit to their further/supplementary affidavit. She also reminded the court of their pending application seeking to regularise their processes.
Responding, counsel for the EFCC, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at what he described as the continued filing of processes by Diezani, likening the development to the manner processes are filed in an election petition.
Mgbeoma, however, said he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
Justice Ekwo thereafter fixed November 11, 2026, for the hearing of the motions.
In the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit dated and filed October 5, 2026, Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in Oyetibo’s law firm, argued that some of the depositions contained in Diezani’s application were misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the substantive issues before the court.
Ekienabor maintained that the proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court were separate from the Nigerian case and should not be allowed to broaden the scope of the 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,” he stated.
The EFCC litigation officer further argued that there was nothing in the public sale notice indicating that any of the properties listed belonged to Diezani.
He also maintained that the forfeiture order related exclusively to jewellery and did not extend to other categories of assets or properties.
According to him, parties to a suit are not permitted to expand the scope of the issues before the court by introducing irrelevant facts.
He urged the court to discountenance Diezani’s further/supplementary affidavit seeking to tender evidence of her UK acquittal.
But Diezani, through her counsel, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, argued that the development was directly relevant to her challenge against the EFCC’s actions.
In a 10-ground argument filed in support of the application, Ozekhome said Diezani’s suit challenged, among other things, the public notice issued by the EFCC for the auction or sale of properties and personal effects allegedly affecting her proprietary rights.
He argued that a major plank of the former minister’s case was that the EFCC sought to impose “grave proprietary consequences” on her without conviction, fair hearing or strict compliance with statutory provisions governing forfeiture, management and disposal of properties.
Ozekhome said Diezani filed her amended originating motion on February 19, 2025, following leave granted by the court on February 17, 2025.
He argued that the subsequent acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court on June 17, 2026, constituted a material development that occurred after the filing of her earlier processes.
According to him, the development was relevant to issues including absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, proprietary rights and compliance with statutory safeguards before the disposal of assets.
The senior lawyer stressed that Diezani was not asking the Federal High Court to sit on appeal over the UK decision or automatically treat it as conclusive in the Nigerian proceedings.
Rather, he said, the application was intended to place a subsequent material fact before the court to assist it in reaching a just determination of the case.
Ozekhome further argued that the development was not available when the earlier processes were filed and therefore could not have been included at that time.
He submitted that the court had the discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence where such evidence could assist in the just determination of the issues before it.
He also argued that granting the application would not prejudice the EFCC and would serve the interest of justice.
