The Digest:
The defence lawyer for Nigeria’s former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has told a London court that she had no real influence over awarding oil contracts during her tenure. Representing her at Southwark Crown Court, Jonathan Laidlaw argued she was merely a “rubber stamp” who approved recommendations from civil servants. Alison-Madueke faces five counts of accepting bribes in the form of luxury goods and property, to which she has pleaded not guilty. The defence claimed personal expenses incurred abroad were repaid in Nigeria and that official business costs were reimbursed by the government, suggesting perceptions of extravagance differ between the UK and Nigeria.
Key Points
- The defence’s argument seeks to distance the former minister from direct culpability, placing responsibility on the bureaucratic system she oversaw.
- It challenges the prosecution’s core narrative of influence-peddling, potentially complicating the task of proving she personally exchanged favours for bribes.
- Alison-Madueke’s legal team attempts to reframe her actions as procedural, while the prosecution aims to portray them as a corrupt abuse of high office.
- The claim tests the court’s understanding of Nigerian governance structures and the real versus ceremonial power of a ministerial position.
- The timing, during the evidential phase of the trial, is crucial for shaping the jury’s perception of her authority and intent.
The defence strategy pivots on decoupling the official title from actual power, setting the stage for a contested interpretation of ministerial responsibility.
Sources: Channels TV, The Cable
