The EFCC has challenged Diezani Alison-Madueke’s bid to rely on her London bribery acquittal in a Nigerian case over forfeited assets.
Diezani: EFCC Moves Against Former Minister’s London Acquittal in Nigerian Asset Case
Former Petroleum Resources Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke has secured an acquittal in a major bribery trial in London, but the verdict has not ended the legal battle over assets forfeited in Nigeria.
The latest twist came on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject Diezani’s bid to rely on her London acquittal in proceedings challenging the forfeiture and proposed disposal of assets linked to her.
The EFCC filed a further counter-affidavit opposing her application and urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to disregard the judgment of the Southwark Crown Court.
The commission argued that the criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom and the asset-recovery case before the Nigerian court concern different legal questions and that Diezani’s acquittal in London should not determine the outcome of the Abuja proceedings.
The Nigerian case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, centres on the forfeiture and proposed disposal of assets linked to the former minister. The Federal High Court is being asked to determine whether the assets were lawfully forfeited and whether Nigerian authorities should be allowed to retain or dispose of them.
The development comes less than four months after a London jury cleared Diezani of all six bribery charges brought against her.
On June 17, 2026, the Southwark Crown Court acquitted the former minister following a trial that lasted several months. The charges involved allegations that she accepted bribes and conspired to accept bribes from businessmen, with prosecutors alleging that the payments were connected to contracts and business opportunities during her tenure as petroleum minister.
The acquittal brought an end to the immediate criminal proceedings against Diezani in the UK, where she had faced allegations for several years.
However, the verdict did not automatically terminate the asset proceedings in Nigeria. The two cases are being handled under separate legal systems and address different questions. While the London proceedings focused on criminal liability, the Abuja case concerns the status, ownership and possible forfeiture of property.
In July, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted Diezani permission to present evidence relating to the UK judgment in the Nigerian proceedings. At the time, the EFCC did not oppose the application.
The commission has now changed its position and is challenging the relevance of the London judgment.
In its latest filing, the EFCC maintained that the foreign criminal judgment does not determine whether assets forfeited in Nigeria should be returned to Diezani. It argued that the Abuja court must independently consider the evidence and legal basis for the forfeiture rather than treat the UK acquittal as conclusive.
The anti-graft agency is therefore asking Justice Ekwo to dismiss the application seeking to rely on the London acquittal.
Its position is that the absence of a criminal conviction in the UK does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings conducted under Nigeria’s civil forfeiture and asset-recovery framework.
Diezani’s legal battle in Abuja is not an attempt to retry the bribery allegations decided in London. Rather, her lawyers are seeking to establish that the UK judgment is relevant to the allegations and evidence underpinning the Nigerian asset proceedings.
The EFCC, however, contends that the Nigerian court must determine the case based on the evidence before it, including the circumstances surrounding the acquisition, tracing, freezing and forfeiture of the assets.
Civil society organisations have also distinguished criminal proceedings from asset-recovery actions, arguing that an acquittal on criminal charges does not automatically settle ownership of property in separate forfeiture proceedings. Such proceedings may involve different legal standards and objectives.
One of the broader asset-recovery matters associated with Diezani involved $52.8 million recovered through international proceedings and returned to Nigeria. Civil society groups have cited the recovery in discussions surrounding assets allegedly connected to corruption during her time in government.
The recovery has continued to draw public attention to accountability questions surrounding Diezani’s tenure. The former minister has consistently denied wrongdoing, while Nigerian authorities have continued to pursue legal and asset-recovery proceedings involving property allegedly linked to her.
For Diezani, the London acquittal has therefore closed one major criminal case but left another legal battle unresolved in Nigeria. The judgment may form part of her argument before the Federal High Court, but its relevance and legal weight will ultimately be determined by the Nigerian court.
The Federal High Court is expected to consider whether the UK judgment can be relied upon in Diezani’s challenge to the forfeiture of the assets and, if admitted, what effect it should have on the Nigerian proceedings.
The pending motions have been fixed for November 11, when the court is expected to hear the competing arguments over Diezani’s bid to rely on the acquittal.
Until then, the legal battle remains active on two separate fronts: the criminal case in London, where Diezani was acquitted, and the Nigerian proceedings over the ownership and forfeiture of assets linked to the former minister.
