The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to disregard the United Kingdom acquittal of former Petroleum Resources Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke in her legal challenge against the forfeiture of assets linked to her.
The dispute follows her acquittal of bribery charges by a London court in June 2026 and raises a key legal question: Can a criminal acquittal in Britain affect an asset-forfeiture case before a Nigerian court?
The EFCC argues that the two proceedings concern different legal issues and that the UK judgment should not influence the Nigerian case.
Alison-Madueke, however, maintains that her acquittal is relevant to her challenge against the forfeiture and proposed sale of properties and personal belongings.
The latest disagreement emerged after the anti-corruption agency filed a further counter-affidavit on 5 October, opposing her attempt to rely on the London judgment.
Why EFCC wants Diezani’s UK acquittal disregarded
The commission argued that the criminal proceedings at Southwark Crown Court in London were separate from the asset-forfeiture dispute before Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In its affidavit, the agency maintained that the British court’s decision did not address the specific questions the Nigerian court must determine.
The affidavit was submitted through Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer at the law firm of Mofesomo Oyetibo, who represents the EFCC.
The commission also challenged the relevance of the supplementary affidavit filed by Alison-Madueke, arguing that it introduced matters outside the central dispute.
Another point raised by the EFCC concerned the scope of an existing forfeiture order.
According to the commission, the particular order referenced in the dispute covered jewellery rather than other categories of property.
It therefore asked the court to reject reliance on the UK acquittal when considering the pending applications.
What Diezani’s lawyers are arguing
Alison-Madueke’s legal team has taken a different position.
Her lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, argued that the acquittal was a significant development that occurred after the earlier court documents had been filed.
He maintained that the judgment was relevant to questions concerning conviction, fair hearing, due process and the lawfulness of depriving his client of property.
Importantly, her lawyers are not asking the Nigerian court to act as an appeal court over the British judgment.
Their argument is that the acquittal should be considered as a relevant subsequent development when determining the Nigerian proceedings.
The former minister’s substantive case challenges actions associated with the forfeiture and proposed disposal of assets she says affect her property rights.
The central disagreement is therefore not whether the British court acquitted her, but what legal significance that acquittal should have in Nigeria.
What happened in the UK corruption trial?
On 17 June 2026, a jury at Southwark Crown Court acquitted Alison-Madueke of six bribery charges following a lengthy criminal trial.
British prosecutors had alleged that she received improper benefits linked to her former position as Nigeria’s petroleum minister.
She denied the allegations.
Reuters reported that the jury reached its verdict after more than 46 hours of deliberations.
Oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde and Alison-Madueke’s brother, Doye Agama, were also acquitted of related charges.
The outcome brought the UK criminal trial to an end, but it did not automatically determine the validity of separate asset-recovery proceedings in other countries.
Why a UK acquittal does not automatically settle a Nigerian forfeiture case
The dispute highlights an important distinction between criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture.
In a criminal case, prosecutors generally must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Asset-forfeiture proceedings can involve different legal requirements, depending on the law and the type of order being challenged.
Some forfeiture proceedings do not require a criminal conviction. However, the authorities must still establish the legal grounds for confiscating property and comply with applicable procedural safeguards.
This means an acquittal in one country does not automatically cancel a forfeiture order made in another.
Equally, an existing forfeiture order does not, by itself, establish that a person is guilty of a separate criminal offence.
In September, the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA) made a similar distinction when discussing Alison-Madueke’s case.
As previously reported by
New Daily Prime
, the civil society organisation said the London verdict should be respected without treating it as a final determination of every asset-recovery proceeding involving the former minister.
The organisation also called for transparency and respect for due process in ongoing recovery efforts.
How the asset dispute began
Alison-Madueke’s challenge against the EFCC dates back to 2023.
She approached the Federal High Court seeking to challenge the commission’s public notice concerning the sale of assets linked to her.
Her case includes arguments that some forfeiture proceedings were conducted without adequate notice or an opportunity for her to be heard.
The EFCC disputes those claims.
The commission has maintained that the relevant forfeiture orders were obtained through court proceedings and that public notices were issued to allow interested parties to contest the applications.
In February 2025, Justice Ekwo granted Alison-Madueke permission to amend her suit.
New Daily Prime
reported at the time
that the court directed her to file revised documents and gave the EFCC an opportunity to respond.
The dispute has continued since then, with the British acquittal becoming another contested issue in the proceedings.
What happens next in Diezani’s asset case?
During Tuesday’s hearing, Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, informed the court that the defence had received the EFCC’s further counter-affidavit shortly before proceedings began.
Paul Mgbeoma, representing the EFCC, told the court that the commission was ready to proceed.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until 11 November 2026 for the hearing of pending motions.
The court has not yet determined the latest dispute over the relevance of the UK acquittal.
The forthcoming hearing will provide another opportunity for both parties to present their positions before the judge decides how to proceed.
Related news
What readers should know
Alison-Madueke was acquitted of the UK bribery charges in June 2026. However, her Nigerian challenge against asset forfeiture remains unresolved.
The EFCC wants the Nigerian court to disregard the London acquittal, while the former minister’s lawyers say it should form part of the court’s consideration. The next hearing is scheduled for 11 November 2026.
