Civil society organisations have said that the June 2026 acquittal of former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke by a jury at Southwark Crown Court does not automatically determine or terminate separate asset-recovery litigation pending before Nigerian courts.

The organisations include the Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice, ANEEJ; Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, CISLAC; Human and Environmental Development Agenda, HEDA Resource Centre; Spotlight on Corruption; and The Corner House.

The CSOs emphasised during a media briefing that the UK verdict must be respected. Alison-Madueke was found not guilty of five counts of accepting bribes and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery after a five-month trial.

They explained, however, that the UK criminal prosecution and the Nigerian asset-forfeiture proceedings involve different legal questions. The UK jury did not determine the ownership or status of assets covered by Nigerian court orders.

Speaking during the briefing, the Executive Director of ANEEJ, Revd. David Ugolor, explained the distinction between criminal prosecution and non-conviction-based asset recovery.

“A criminal case is about the guilt or innocence of a particular person. Asset recovery focuses on alleged proceeds of corruption or crime. It is not about the person; it is about whether particular money or assets are shown, through the applicable legal process, to be connected to unlawful activity,” he said.

Ugolor stressed that the CSOs were not calling for a fresh criminal trial of Alison-Madueke. Their position was that existing Nigerian proceedings should be allowed to run their lawful course without being prejudged by the media or other parties.

He referred to the January 2025 agreement between the United States and Nigeria concerning approximately US$52.88 million in assets forfeited through separate United States proceedings.

According to the United States Department of Justice, the assets were forfeited following proceedings concerning corruption, bribery, money laundering and other illegal acts involving Alison-Madueke, Nigerian businessmen Kolawole Aluko and Olajide Omokore, and their associates. The US proceedings were separate from the criminal charges subsequently determined by the London jury.

Under the US–Nigeria agreement, US$50 million was directed to a World Bank-administered trust fund supporting the Distributed Access through Renewable Energy Scale-Up project, implemented by Nigeria’s Rural Electrification Agency. Approximately US$2.88 million was designated for rule-of-law and counterterrorism capacity-building through the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law.

Ugolor said the central concern of the briefing was the absence of a comprehensive, publicly accessible asset-by-asset record through which Nigerians could verify the status, custody, valuation, disposal and proceeds of recovered assets.

“It remains difficult for citizens to identify the present status of particular assets linked to the various proceedings. This represents a serious gap in public disclosure and asset traceability,” he said.

He called on the EFCC and other relevant organisations to comply fully with the recordkeeping and asset-management requirements of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022.

Ugolor also referred to the pending Federal High Court case in Abuja concerning the forfeiture and disposal of assets claimed by Alison-Madueke. In July 2026, the court permitted her to place evidence of the UK acquittal before it. The EFCC’s preliminary objection and the substantive suit are scheduled for hearing on 6 October 2026.

“The UK criminal acquittal and the Nigerian asset-forfeiture proceedings are separate legal tracks. The Federal High Court should be allowed to determine the pending issues on the evidence and applicable law,” Ugolor said.

The EFCC’s reported position is that the relevant final forfeiture orders remain valid and that notices were published before the orders were made. Alison-Madueke disputes the adequacy of the notice and alleges violations of her right to fair hearing. These contested matters are now for the court to determine.

The CSOs said they were not taking the place of the court or making findings about ownership of the disputed assets. They called for due process, accurate public records and transparent implementation of Nigeria’s proceeds-of-crime legislation.

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.