Former Nigerian Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has told the Southwark Crown Court in London that she neither controlled nor personally benefited from luxury purchases and financial transactions being examined in her ongoing trial.
Court proceedings continued with prosecutors presenting emails, invoices, travel records, text messages, and transaction documents, which they say link her to high-value spending patterns in 2013 involving luxury goods, property items, and designer purchases.
The prosecution alleged that the transactions showed coordinated spending involving associates acting on her behalf, pointing to records from Harrods and other vendors covering watches, clothing, furniture, and accessories.
However, Diezani maintained in her testimony that she did not supervise or direct the financial activities of individuals linked to the transactions. She specifically rejected claims that key associates acted under her control in executing purchases.
She also told the court that she had no knowledge of several of the transactions or could not recall them when confronted with specific invoices and purchase records.
When questioned about luxury items allegedly bought for her, she denied receiving some of the goods, while acknowledging ownership of certain personal items when asked separately.
The court was also shown documents relating to property fittings and household items, including lighting and furniture. Diezani stated that she could not clearly remember whether she selected or approved all the items presented.
She explained that her background in architecture sometimes involved offering general design input when consulted, but insisted this did not amount to direct involvement in procurement or financial decisions.
Prosecutors further relied on messages and communications said to suggest her involvement in coordinating purchases and deliveries. Diezani disputed this interpretation, arguing that the communications did not prove personal control over financial transactions.
Attention was also given to the role of aides and intermediaries allegedly involved in making payments later reimbursed through separate arrangements. She told the court such support roles were common in official environments and did not imply direct personal management of funds.
The defence also pointed to her travel and official duties at the time, arguing that her schedule made it difficult to recall specific details of events cited by the prosecution.
Diezani maintained that the case against her is largely based on assumptions drawn from third-party actions rather than direct evidence of personal enrichment or financial control.
The trial is ongoing, with both prosecution and defence continuing to present arguments and examine documentary and financial evidence before the court.
