Former Nigerian Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has told the Southwark Crown Court in London that she neither controlled nor personally benefited from a series of luxury purchases and financial transactions presented by prosecutors in her ongoing trial.
The court continued hearing evidence focused on alleged high-value spending patterns in 2013, with prosecutors presenting emails, travel records, invoices, text messages, and Harrods transaction documents said to link the former minister to luxury goods and property-related acquisitions.
During cross-examination, prosecutors revisited events in July 2013, including travel movements and communications tied to designer items such as watches, handbags, furniture, and household fittings. The prosecution argued that the pattern of transactions suggested coordinated spending involving associates acting on her behalf.
However, Alison-Madueke firmly rejected the allegations, insisting she did not direct or supervise the financial activities of key individuals mentioned in the case.
“I did not exercise control over their financial decisions,” she told the court, referring to an associate identified as Mr Aluko, whom she described as an adviser rather than a proxy acting under instruction.
Prosecutors confronted her with Harrods invoices and personal shopping records allegedly covering luxury watches, candles, clothing, and furniture items purchased between 4 and 6 July 2013. In response, she said she either had no knowledge of the transactions or could not recall them.
When asked whether she received luxury watches allegedly purchased on her behalf, she replied, “Not at all,” though she acknowledged separately owning a Rolex timepiece.
On several other transactions, she repeatedly told the court she could not confirm whether items were intended for her. “I have no idea,” she said when asked if Mr Aluko had been shopping on her behalf.
The court also reviewed invoices and photographs linked to property fittings, including lamps, lighting fixtures, and decorative furniture allegedly acquired during the same period. Alison-Madueke said she could not clearly remember selecting such items and suggested that any design input she provided was general in nature.
“I may have given general advice based on my architectural background,” she said, adding that she was not in a position to identify every item presented in evidence.
The prosecution further relied on text messages and communications involving meetings, deliveries, and coordination with Harrods and other vendors, arguing that they demonstrated active involvement in procurement activities.
But the defendant disputed that interpretation, maintaining that many of the messages lacked context and should not be viewed as evidence of direct financial control. “They should not be read as proof of involvement,” she told the court.
Attention also focused on individuals alleged to have facilitated purchases using payment cards later reimbursed through separate arrangements. Alison-Madueke said she was aware that aides sometimes assisted with logistics but denied managing their financial dealings.
She described such arrangements as common in official settings, where support staff acted in administrative roles and were later reimbursed as necessary.
The court further examined travel records and scheduling documents suggesting her presence in multiple locations during key transaction periods. She said her schedule at the time was complex, involving official duties and international travel, which affected her ability to recall specific events.
At several points, she maintained that a lack of recollection should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing, insisting that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on inference rather than direct proof of personal enrichment.
The defence also addressed references to property maintenance and renovation works at a site described as “The Falls,” where Alison-Madueke said structural and system repairs, including heating and cooling issues, required attention. She said discussions about fittings formed part of routine maintenance rather than personal luxury procurement.
The trial continues as prosecutors attempt to establish whether the documented transactions constitute evidence of illicit enrichment, while the defence maintains they reflect independent actions by third parties without her control or benefit.