The trial of former Nigerian petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, resumed on Day 23 at the Southwark Crown Court in London, with the ex-minister telling the court she was unfairly blamed and effectively made a scapegoat for decisions taken at the highest levels of government, particularly during the fallout from Nigeria’s 2012 fuel subsidy crisis.
Testifying under cross-examination, Diezani said she felt “betrayed” by the manner in which the subsidy removal was implemented under former President Goodluck Jonathan, noting that the abrupt New Year’s Day announcement triggered nationwide unrest and placed her, as petroleum minister, at the centre of public outrage.
She insisted that the policy had been the subject of prior deliberations and that its sudden execution exposed her to criticism for decisions she did not solely control.
“I felt betrayed to a certain extent,” she said, referring to the decision taken under former President Goodluck Jonathan.
“I felt like a scapegoat because I was ultimately responsible as oil minister.”
Diezani rejected suggestions by the prosecution that she exercised authority over luxury properties allegedly connected to businessman Ben Peters, insisting that her involvement was limited to offering interior design advice.
“I was giving advice, not instructions,” she told the court, pushing back against claims that she directed refurbishment works or controlled the properties in question.
According to her, communications with contractors and intermediaries were purely advisory and did not translate into ownership or decision-making authority.
She further argued that there was no documentary evidence directly linking her to legal ownership of the properties, maintaining that any inference to the contrary was speculative.
She insisted that the payment was unsolicited and consistent with a culture of generosity.
“We did not ask for it,” she said, maintaining that there was no intention to derive undue benefit.
Diezani also addressed questions surrounding her use of a private jet, which prosecutors suggested reflected extravagant spending.
She maintained that the flight was necessitated by the urgency of the situation in Nigeria at the time of the fuel subsidy crisis.
According to her, she had originally planned to return to Nigeria on a commercial flight but had to leave earlier due to the sudden escalation of unrest.
“We were taken completely by surprise,” she said, explaining that her immediate return was required in response to the deteriorating situation.
Throughout the cross-examination, Diezani frequently stated that she could not recall specific details relating to emails, invoices, and transactions dating back more than a decade.
She attributed these memory gaps to the passage of time and the volume of material presented in court.
“Madam Prosecutor, I cannot possibly answer that question in 2026, after all these years,” she said during one exchange.
The prosecution, however, continues to argue that the pattern of communications, payments, and asset movements forms part of a broader scheme in which Diezani benefited from assets held in the names of others.
Proceedings are expected to continue with further cross-examination as the court examines the competing narratives.
Credit: This Day