Several notable Nigerian lawyers have assessed the impact of the United Kingdom court’s verdict on the Nigerian justice system following the acquittal of former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, of bribery allegations by a UK court.
Their assessments come amid the quashing of the high-profile corruption trial that spanned several years in London.
The legal victory in the UK is also significant in view of forfeiture cases involving the former minister and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In an exclusive chat with Nairametrics, prominent lawyers analyzed whether the UK court acquittal will have any bearing on court cases involving the former minister and the EFCC in Nigeria.
What Nigerian lawyers are saying
Speaking with Nairametrics, Chief Rafiu Oyeyemi Balogun, SAN, reasoned that the trial and acquittal of Alison-Madueke in a United Kingdom court can never constitute a stumbling block to the ongoing cases against or involving her in Nigeria.
He added that the development can neither hinder the initiation of fresh investigations nor the continuation of investigations by the relevant security agencies in Nigeria, with a view to prosecuting her if she is found to have committed any offence whatsoever in Nigeria constituting an infraction of the Criminal Code, the EFCC Act, the ICPC Act, or any other laws that criminalize any action or inaction in the country.
- He said it would have been a different matter if her trial had been conducted in Nigeria for the offences of bribery and other offences for which she was prosecuted alongside other persons in the United Kingdom.
- In that case, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) or the relevant anti-graft agencies (EFCC and ICPC) could not commence her trial on the same charges for which she had already been acquitted,” he said.
- According to him, it is only in such circumstances that she would be entitled to rely on the settled legal principle of “double jeopardy”, as enshrined under Sections 36(9) and 36(10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He explained that double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same or similar charges arising from the same facts following a valid acquittal, conviction, or pardon, except as may be ordered by a superior court.
He highlighted that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly restated the doctrine of double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offence based on the same set of facts.
He said that once a criminal charge has been adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction, that adjudication is accepted as final, whether it results in an acquittal or a conviction.
He concluded that there is nothing prohibiting the Federal Government from going back to the drawing board to investigate and prosecute the former minister if there is a genuine case of corruption and abuse of office against her, adding that the UK court acquittal has nothing to do with the ongoing cases in Nigeria.
According to him, the offences for which she was tried and acquitted were committed in the United Kingdom and fall outside Nigeria’s jurisdiction.
- “The United Kingdom court cannot be the court of competent jurisdiction envisaged under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution,” he said.
More insights
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Johnson J. Usman, explained that since the former minister was not sued for the same offences, the UK acquittal would have no impact on any ongoing cases in Nigeria.
He stressed that, by law, the judgment of a foreign jurisdiction is not binding on Nigeria’s judicial system, explaining that foreign decisions may be persuasive but are not binding on Nigerian courts.
- “It (the UK court acquittal) may be of persuasive value if the facts and the law are the same. It can therefore be referred to for persuasive purposes, and that is only if there is no Nigerian court decision on that point. However, where there is a Nigerian decision on that point, there will be no recourse to the judgment or decision of a court in another jurisdiction,” he added.
He further stated that even if the facts and the law are the same, and there is already a decision of a Nigerian court, then the decision of a foreign court or another jurisdiction would be of no value to the Nigerian judiciary.
He continued:
- “Even if the facts are the same and we don’t have any judgment in Nigeria, it (the UK Court acquittal) can only be of persuasive value because their decisions are not binding on our courts.”
On his part, Chris Ekemezie, a Nigerian lawyer, said the trial and acquittal of the former minister in England would not affect the cases in Nigeria.
- “What happens in one territory does not constitute a bar in another territory. She was tried for offending the laws of England, not the laws of Nigeria”.
- “The Nigerian courts are independent of whatever happens in Britain,” he added.
He said that even if a person is charged for similar offences based on the same evidence in different territories, “Nigerian courts can hold a different opinion.”
- “It is only when she has been tried within Nigeria for that same offence and acquitted that you can then say that no other court in Nigeria can try her,” he added.
He further highlighted that English courts have no jurisdiction to try an offence committed in Nigeria because criminal jurisdiction is territorial.
- “It has to be committed within the territory of that country for the court to have jurisdiction to try a suspect or criminal defendant.”
He maintained that the acquittal in England has nothing to do with any proceedings in Nigeria but added that it rests with Nigerian prosecutors to decide whether to prosecute her or not.
According to him, the rules of double jeopardy do not apply in favour of the former minister because the United Kingdom is a completely different jurisdiction.
He explained that the rule of double jeopardy means that one cannot be tried twice for the same offence in the same territory.
He concluded that the UK court acquittal cannot prevent a Nigerian court from proceeding with a trial or case and, if the evidence supports it, convicting her.
Nairametrics reached out to one of Alison-Madueke’s counsels in Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, regarding the development, but there was no response as of the time of filing this report.
Backstory
Alison-Madueke, who served as Nigeria’s petroleum minister between 2010 and 2015 under former President Goodluck Jonathan, consistently denied the allegations throughout the trial.
The case also involved oil industry executive Olatimbo Ayinde, who faced one count of bribery relating to Alison-Madueke and Alison-Madueke’s brother, Doye Agama, was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with payments allegedly made to his church.
The duo denied wrongdoing and were found not guilty by the jury.
What You Should Know
Nairametrics previously reported that the Federal Government of Nigeria and the United States had formalized an agreement for the repatriation of assets linked to Alison-Madueke and her associates.
However, in a right of reply issued through her counsel, Mike Ozekhome Chambers, last year, the former minister claimed that the alleged repatriation of $52.88 million in proceeds from the forfeiture of assets linked to her was an attempt to “tarnish her image” and reputation.
Ozekhome argued that the former minister was never involved in the purchase, use, or sale of the assets linked to her.
