Courts, Not Commentators: Rethinking Diezani’s Trial in Law and Public Opinion
Ikemesit Effiong
There has been an inexhaustible volume of reporting and commentary on the recent decision by a London jury finding former petroleum minister Diezani Alison-Madueke not guilty of six bribery charges brought against her by UK prosecutors, bringing to an end an 11-year investigation by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA). This piece will inevitably add to that growing volume. The reporting and commentary have largely centred on its implications for tackling corruption in Nigeria, the difficulty of securing criminal convictions against foreign Politically Exposed Persons, the inability of Nigerian anti-graft agencies to pull their own weight in the face of anaemic political will, and even the implications of this case for British anti-graft institutions.
A passing look at the reactions from senior lawyers, civil rights activists and political commentators offers three insights: that the UK decision is that of a foreign court and not applicable under Nigerian law, the NCA did not do a great job linking a lavish lifestyle to gifts alleged to have been received by the former minister and the assumption that a Nigerian court of law will reach a substantially different conclusion. An examination of these arguments is important for setting public expectations about how Nigeria can clean up its governance.
