The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has opposed former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to place the judgment of a United Kingdom court acquitting her of bribery charges before the Federal High Court in Abuja

The anti-graft agency asked Justice Inyang Ekwo to reject the former minister’s further/supplementary affidavit, arguing that the outcome of the proceedings at the Southwark Crown Court in London has no bearing on the issues currently before the Nigerian court.

 Politics Nigeria reports that the EFCC’s position came after Alison-Madueke sought permission to present evidence of her June 17, 2026 acquittal in the UK as part of her ongoing legal battle over assets forfeited by the Nigerian government.

The former minister is challenging actions taken by the EFCC concerning properties and personal effects linked to her. Her suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, has the EFCC as the sole respondent.

Justice Ekwo had earlier allowed Alison-Madueke to file a further affidavit relating to her acquittal.

The application was not opposed at the time by the EFCC, which was represented by Mofesomo Oyetibo, SAN.

However, after the former minister’s legal team filed the additional process, the commission changed its position and filed a further counter-affidavit challenging the relevance of the UK judgment to the Nigerian proceedings.

The latest development came during proceedings before Justice Ekwo on Tuesday.

Mrs Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, who appeared for Alison-Madueke, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the substantive originating motion.

She informed the judge that the commission had served her team with a fresh process shortly before the proceedings began.

According to Uwe, the document was the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit in response to the supplementary affidavit filed by Alison-Madueke.

She also reminded the court that the former minister’s legal team had a pending application seeking to regularise some of its processes.

Counsel for the EFCC, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at the number of processes being filed by the former minister’s legal team.

Mgbeoma said the manner in which the applications were being filed made the case appear like an election petition matter. He nevertheless informed the court that he was prepared to proceed with the hearing.

Justice Ekwo subsequently fixed November 11 for the hearing of the pending motions.

In its further counter-affidavit dated and filed on October 5, the EFCC maintained that the UK proceedings should not be allowed to alter the focus of the Nigerian case.

The affidavit was deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in the law firm of Oyetibo.

The commission argued that Alison-Madueke’s acquittal in London arose from a separate criminal proceeding that was not before the Nigerian court.

“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.”

The EFCC further disputed the suggestion that the properties covered by its public sale notice were necessarily owned by Alison-Madueke.

Ekienabor said there was nothing in the notice indicating that any of the properties listed for sale belonged to the former minister.

The commission also argued that the forfeiture order at issue in the proceedings was limited in scope.

“The order for forfeiture relates exclusively to items of jewellery and does not extend to any other category of assets or properties.”

The anti-graft agency therefore maintained that the former minister’s latest affidavit introduced matters that were outside the issues already placed before the court.

It argued that parties in a case could not expand the scope of their claims through fresh processes containing matters that were not relevant to the dispute.

“The applicant’s further/supplementary affidavit introduces irrelevant facts into this suit, thereby diverting attention from the core issues before this honourable court,” the EFCC stated.

The commission consequently asked the court to disregard the supplementary affidavit and the evidence relating to Alison-Madueke’s acquittal in the UK.

The dispute over the relevance of the London judgment arose after Alison-Madueke was acquitted of six bribery-related charges at Southwark Crown Court.

A jury found her not guilty of the charges after a trial that lasted several months. The case was brought by the UK’s National Crime Agency over allegations connected to events between 2011 and 2015. Alison-Madueke had denied the allegations throughout the proceedings.

Her acquittal became a fresh development in the Nigerian proceedings because she is also challenging the forfeiture and proposed sale of assets linked to her.

Her legal team, led by senior lawyer Mike Ozekhome, had argued that the UK judgment was material to the Nigerian case because the former minister was seeking to challenge what she described as the deprivation of her property rights without a criminal conviction and without proper adherence to due process.

In the legal argument supporting the application, Ozekhome said the Nigerian court was not being asked to sit on appeal over the decision of the UK court.

He maintained that the purpose was to bring a subsequent event to the attention of the Federal High Court because the acquittal occurred after earlier processes had already been filed in the Nigerian case.

The lawyer argued that the development could assist the court in determining questions surrounding conviction, fair hearing, due process and the legality of the steps taken against Alison-Madueke’s assets.

“After the filing of the applicant’s processes and while this suit was still pending before this honourable court, a subsequent and material event occurred, to wit: the applicant was acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, on 17th June, 2026, of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her, a proceeding of obvious material relevance to the allegations repeatedly referenced in relation to the applicant.”

Ozekhome also argued that the acquittal could not have been included in Alison-Madueke’s earlier filings because it had not happened at the time those documents were prepared.

He maintained that allowing the additional evidence would not automatically determine the Nigerian case in the former minister’s favour.

Instead, he said, it would give the court the opportunity to consider a development that occurred while the Nigerian proceedings were still pending.

Recall that Alison-Madueke was cleared of all six bribery charges by the Southwark Crown Court in London on June 17, ending a lengthy criminal trial that had followed years of investigation by UK authorities.

Following the acquittal, former presidential spokesman Laolu Akande had urged the former minister to return to Nigeria and face the corruption cases still pending against her, stressing that the UK verdict did not automatically dispose of proceedings in Nigeria.