The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has formally opposed the application made by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to present evidence from a UK court that acquitted her of bribery charges. This development comes as Diezani seeks to reclaim assets that were forfeited during her ongoing legal battles in Nigeria.

In a counter-affidavit filed before Justice Inyang Ekwo, the EFCC argued that the acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London is not relevant to the issues currently before the Nigerian court. The commission has requested that Justice Ekwo dismiss Diezani's application, asserting that the matters adjudicated in the UK do not pertain to the substantive issues at hand in Nigeria.

Diezani was acquitted by the UK court on June 17, 2026, regarding allegations of bribery. Following this acquittal, she filed a suit against the EFCC, seeking to recover her assets that had been previously forfeited. Her legal team, led by Godwin Iyinbor, had initially succeeded in obtaining permission from the court to present evidence of this acquittal, as the EFCC did not contest the motion at that time.

However, the EFCC's recent counter-affidavit, dated October 5, challenges the relevance of Diezani's acquittal. Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer for the EFCC, stated that the proceedings in the UK are unrelated to the Nigerian court's jurisdiction and that the evidence Diezani wishes to introduce is misleading and immaterial.

During a recent court session, Diezani's counsel, Mrs. Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, informed the court that the EFCC had served them with a new motion just before the hearing began. This motion included the EFCC's further counter-affidavit, which sought to dismiss Diezani's supplementary affidavit regarding her acquittal. The EFCC's counsel, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at the number of processes Diezani has been filing, likening it to an election petition case.

Justice Ekwo has scheduled the next hearing for November 11 to address the EFCC's preliminary objections and Diezani's motions. In the EFCC's counter-affidavit, it was emphasized that the forfeiture order relates specifically to items of jewelry and does not encompass any other properties claimed by Diezani.

Diezani's legal team argues that the recent acquittal is crucial to her case, particularly as it pertains to the alleged absence of conviction and the need for due process in the forfeiture of her assets. They maintain that presenting this evidence is essential for ensuring justice in the ongoing proceedings. The outcome of this legal battle remains to be seen as both parties prepare for the upcoming court date.