A UK-based anti-corruption campaigner, Helen Taylor, says the acquittal of former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke in the UK does not prevent Nigerian authorities from pursuing separate corruption allegations against her.
Taylor, from Spotlight on Corruption, said this at a webinar examining the implications of the UK court judgment on Alison-Madueke.
The event was organised by the African Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) and other Civil Society Organisations (CSOs).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that a jury at London’s Southwark Crown Court On June 17, found Alison-Madueke not guilty on all five counts of accepting bribes and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) also has a case against her regarding her time as Nigeria’s Minister of Petroleum Resources under President Goodluck Jonathan from 2010 to 2015.
Investigators alleged that up to 20 billion dollars left the country during her tenure, and questions about public accountability remain unanswered.
Reference was made to the recovery of the Galactica case, where 52.8 million dollars in seized assets was returned to Nigeria after a U.S. court affirmed that it was part of the proceeds of corruption relating to oil sector contract during Diezani’s tenure.
Taylor said the UK case was limited to the specific charges and evidence presented before the court and did not cover all allegations that Nigerian investigators might be examining.
“It will be wrong to interpret the UK judgment as ending every possible investigation or legal action relating to Alison-Madueke in Nigeria.”
Taylor said the UK court’s acquittal must, however, be respected and should not be reopened or portrayed as an incorrect judicial decision.
She explained that the verdict meant the jury was not satisfied that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the charges before it.
“It is not an all-or-nothing situation. Nigerian authorities can still pursue matters based on credible evidence that they may have.”
Taylor stressed that any future action by Nigerian authorities must be supported by credible and objective evidence capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
She also distinguished criminal prosecution from civil recovery or non-conviction-based asset forfeiture.
“Criminal prosecution concerns the guilt or innocence of an individual, while civil recovery focuses on whether particular assets are proceeds of crime.
“Assets could therefore be subject to recovery proceedings even where a criminal prosecution failed, depending on the applicable law and evidence,” she said.
Taylor said the distinction was important to avoid wrongly interpreting asset forfeiture proceedings as proof of an individual’s criminal guilt.
Also speaking, Mr Auwal Rafsanjani, Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), said the UK judgment should not be used to discontinue any legitimate investigation or prosecution in Nigeria.
Rafsanjani said the case before the UK court was separate from ongoing issues involving Alison-Madueke in Nigeria, adding that the evidence and charges in the two jurisdictions were not necessarily the same.
“The case for Alison-Madueke in the UK is not an evidence to discontinue whatever prosecution has to happen in Nigeria,” he said.
