The recent legal proceedings involving Diezani Alison-Madueke, the former Minister of Petroleum Resources of Nigeria, have come to a halt after a scheduled hearing at the Federal High Court in Abuja was canceled due to the presiding judge’s absence. Alison-Madueke has initiated a lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in an effort to recover assets that were seized by the Federal Government, an action stemming from allegations of corruption that emerged following her tenure in office from 2010 to 2015 under former President Goodluck Jonathan. The case, referenced as FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, has now been adjourned to November 21, 2024, creating further delays in her pursuit to reclaim her assets.
Alison-Madueke has resided in the United Kingdom since the inception of the corruption allegations against her. Subsequently, the EFCC sought a permanent forfeiture order for her assets, which were perceived as proceeds from her alleged criminal activities while serving as minister. As part of her legal strategy, Diezani’s counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, has filed motions requesting the court to invalidate the forfeiture orders that were made without proper jurisdiction or due process. Alison-Madueke asserts her constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated, claiming that she was not served with necessary documentation such as charge sheets or summons pertaining to the criminal charges.
Diezani’s legal argument hinges on the assertion that the forfeiture orders against her were based on misleading information, thus warranting judicial review and reversal. She contends that the proceedings that led to the forfeiture orders were fraught with misrepresentations and suppression of essential facts that should have been disclosed to the courts. Citing her constitutional rights, she emphasizes that the orders were made without giving her a fair opportunity to defend herself or contest the allegations being levied against her. Her legal team believes that these flaws render the orders void, pushing for their annulment.
On the opposite side, the EFCC has filed a counter-affidavit asserting that Alison-Madueke’s claims lack merit and should be dismissed. The agency’s statement, presented by investigator Rufai Zaki, argues that substantial evidence indicates the former minister’s involvement in serious corruption, money laundering, and other illegal acts. The EFCC insists that legal procedures were properly observed, and that previous court orders leading to the forfeiture of Alison-Madueke’s assets were conducted in accordance with the law, having undergone necessary due process, including public notification inviting any interested parties to contest the forfeiture.
Zaki’s affidavit also references previous court rulings that upheld the forfeiture orders, thereby reinforcing the EFCC’s position that the assets were legally disposed of following the due course of justice. He indicates that various hearings had taken place in relevant legal matters before the orders for forfeiture were granted. The EFCC claims that Diezani’s allegations of improper judicial conduct or mismanagement of her case are unfounded, asserting that all actions taken regarding her assets were substantiated and justifiable.
As the case continues to unfold, the implications of the hearing’s postponement and the presented arguments from both sides highlight the complexities surrounding legal proceedings in high-profile corruption cases in Nigeria. Diezani Alison-Madueke’s legal battle encapsulates not only the fight for her assets but also reflects broader concerns regarding governance, accountability, and the rule of law in the country. The extended timeline for this case raises questions about the efficiency of the justice system in addressing corruption and protecting the rights of accused individuals, especially in scenarios involving significant public interest and media scrutiny.
