Inside The Trial Testing Nigeria’s Oil-Era Power Dynamics
Defence Pushes Back Against Narrative of Absolute Power
AT the heart of the corruption trial of former Nigerian petroleum minister Diezani Alison-Madueke is a dispute over power: whether she controlled Nigeria’s oil sector or merely endorsed decisions made by others. Her defence team insists the latter is true.
Speaking before jurors at Southwark Crown Court, Mrs. Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, Jonathan Laidlaw, said allegations portraying her as the architect of oil contracts misrepresent how Nigeria’s government functions. He described her ministerial role as procedural rather than decisive.
Charges Rooted in Oil Contract Awards
UK prosecutors allege that Mrs. Alison-Madueke accepted bribes connected to the award of oil and gas contracts during her five-year tenure as petroleum minister under President Goodluck Jonathan. The charges include conspiracy to commit bribery and multiple counts of receiving unlawful benefits.
Prosecutors argue that those who provided luxury goods and property access believed she would deploy her influence to favour them in contract decisions.
Mrs. Alison-Madueke has denied the allegations.
Role Defined by Bureaucracy, Lawyer Says
According to Mr. Laidlaw, Nigeria’s oil contracts pass through layers of scrutiny involving senior civil servants and regulatory agencies. He told the court that ministers formally approve recommendations rather than initiate or dictate outcomes.
Reuters quoted him as saying that Mrs. Alison-Madueke acted as a “rubber stamp,” a description intended to undermine claims that she exercised unchecked authority.
Public Perception Versus Legal Reality
Mrs. Alison-Madueke’s tenure coincided with a period of intense scrutiny of Nigeria’s oil sector. Her appointment as OPEC president reinforced perceptions of her global influence, adding to her image as a dominant political figure.
However, her defence argues that public perception should not substitute for evidence of criminal conduct.
Disputing Lifestyle Allegations
The prosecution has cited evidence suggesting that Mrs. Alison-Madueke enjoyed a lavish lifestyle in London, including luxury goods and high-value properties. Mr. Laidlaw countered that these arrangements stemmed from restrictions on Nigerian ministers holding foreign accounts.
He said his client reimbursed personal expenses and denied benefiting financially from public funds.
What the Jury Must Decide
Mr. Laidlaw urged jurors to assess whether Mrs. Alison-Madueke truly had the power attributed to her or whether she operated within constrained institutional frameworks.
The trial continues.
