In London, prosecutors say Diezani Alison-Madueke was handed “a life of luxury” by oil barons: millions at Harrods, museum-grade furniture, and renovated townhouses in return for favourable treatment in Nigeria’s oil sector. The opening witnesses at Southwark Crown Court have produced those vivid images—but they have also produced something else: a consistent pattern in which the money, contracts, and legal ownership sit with the men around her, above all Kola Aluko, while Alison-Madueke appears as a user, adviser, or mediator, not the paymaster or owner the prosecution wants the jury to imagine.
What the First Three Witnesses Actually Showed
Harrods private-client manager Amina Hamila was called to dramatise the spending. She confirmed that more than £2m was run up on “Madam Diezani’s” account and that the minister enjoyed Black-Tier status and a personal shopper. Harrods’ own records, however, showed those purchases being charged to cards held by Kola Aluko, his company Tenka and, later, other businessmen—not to any card in Alison-Madueke’s name. Under cross-examination, Hamila accepted that the minister never physically produced a payment card and that internal systems treated Aluko as the paying client. When defence lawyers matched large transactions to passport stamps, some of the spending tagged to her Harrods profile turned out to have been made while she was out of the UK. The headline remains the same—£2m at Harrods—but the identity of the person actually footing the bill does not.
The second witness, Monica Glerean of Mayfair gallery Vincenzo Caffarella, agreed the minister had “good knowledge of furniture,” was “an architect,” and often advised Aluko on what would look good in his house. But again, the money trail ran in the opposite direction. Over £370,000 in invoices—including a £40,320 order made out to “Sheldon D of St John’s Wood” and a later £63,840 purchase—were all settled on Aluko’s credit cards; Glerean never saw Alison-Madueke hand over money. She also confirmed that Aluko came without the minister on several occasions and spent more than £300,000 on his own account. The pattern from Harrods repeats itself: the minister chooses, the billionaire pays.
The third witness, contractor Tony Mulcahy of Bear Rock Construction, was supposed to lock in the property side of the story. His testimony did the opposite. He told the court his firm carried out multi-million-pound refurbishments at 39 Chester Close North and at a Harley House flat, but said clearly that his client was Kola Aluko: it was Aluko who found Bear Rock, gave instructions, and received every invoice. Mulcahy described installing a lift at Chester Close North because he was told the intended occupant would be Alison-
Madueke’s elderly mother and that the top floor was for the minister’s son. Subsequent accounts record him acknowledging that Aluko’s story about the “invalid” mother was not true and that he had been misled about who would actually live there—undercutting one of the prosecution’s most emotive images.
On the finances, Mulcahy painted a harsh picture. He described arrears that left Bear Rock “on the brink” by late 2013. Unpaid bills for works commissioned by Aluko ultimately pushed his company into voluntary liquidation. Against that backdrop, his description of Alison- Madueke stands out. He recalled meeting her on site to review samples and later said that, as the dispute dragged on, she tried to assist him by bringing in her lawyer, Donald Amamgbo, to go through the accounts and help him recover what he was owed from Aluko. That is not the behaviour of a hidden owner refusing to pay; it is the behaviour of someone caught between an aggrieved contractor and a wealthy associate, intervening on the contractor’s side.
Taken together, the three witnesses were meant to show that Diezani Alison-Madueke was the hidden centre of a bribery web. What they actually show is something narrower: that she moved inside a circle of enormous male wealth in which other people’s cards paid at the till, other people’s companies signed the contracts, and other people’s stories justified the spending—while she sometimes stepped in to mediate when those arrangements collapsed.
When Ownership Papers Contradict the Prosecution’s Story
If this were just about who used which card, the ambiguity might be enough for a jury to argue over. But when you look at how governments and courts have treated the big-ticket houses in this saga, the attempt to recast them as Diezani’s private estate becomes even harder to defend.
In Nigeria, the EFCC has obtained interim and final forfeiture orders over properties explicitly described as belonging to Kola Aluko: multi- million-dollar plots in Abuja and Avenue Towers on Victoria Island, Lagos, valued at roughly $73m and N350m and said to have been bought with diverted public funds. Court documents and subsequent reporting confirm these assets as Aluko’s; appeal decisions upholding the forfeiture of an $18m Abuja mansion and related holdings do the same. Civil and criminal filings in the US likewise treat London and American real estate as owned by companies controlled by Aluko and Jide Omokore, even when they note that a property was acquired “for the benefit” of Alison-Madueke.
Where investigators have overreached, the correction has been explicit. Two UK properties that Nigerian agencies initially tried to sweep into the Diezani scandal as part of a broader forfeiture drive were shown to belong to Aiteo boss Benedict Peters. In 2018, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered their immediate release, holding that the properties “wholly belonged to him” and had no proven link to Alison-Madueke’s alleged misconduct. In that instance, both land records and the court spoke with one voice: the houses were his, not hers.
Overlay this with what has happened in the market. Investigations spurred by the Pandora Papers showed how one London mansion previously owned by Kola Aluko was sold on for roughly £10–11m to a British Virgin Islands company. Whatever one thinks of that transaction, the key point is simple: the person who exercised the legal right to sell—to sign the transfer, take the proceeds, and walk away—was Aluko, not Alison-Madueke.
Elsewhere, businessmen whose UK properties once appeared on Diezani-era forfeiture schedules continue to live in or control them after courts affirmed that those assets are theirs alone.
In other words, when governments go to court to seize, sell, or release these houses, they put the men’s names on the paperwork. They treat those men’s acts—surrendering one property, selling another, reclaiming a third—as valid exercises of ownership. Yet in the London criminal trial, many of the same addresses are held up as if they were self-evidently “Diezani’s homes,” the bricks-and-mortar expression of her alleged greed. If states truly believed she was the beneficial owner, why have their own forfeiture actions, across three jurisdictions, been aimed at Aluko, Omokore, and Peters instead?
How the Story Quietly Shrinks the Men
There is a quieter distortion running through this case. In the documentary record, Kola Aluko and his peers are anything but bit- players: they are the ones whose cards paid at Harrods, whose companies settled (or failed to settle) the gallery and building invoices, and whose names appear on title documents, forfeiture orders, and sale contracts. Aluko, in particular, appears as a global operator in his own right—a man with a super-yacht, a Manhattan apartment, and a property portfolio large enough to attract dedicated forfeiture actions in Nigeria and civil suits in the United States.
Yet in the London courtroom narrative, that profile is subtly flattened. The billionaire whose spending and signatures structure the entire paper trail is quietly downgraded to a kind of overgrown errand- runner—the man who supposedly buys and renovates houses, commissions lifts, and charters private jets “for” Alison-Madueke, as though he has no independent agency or motives of his own.
The woman who fought her way into Shell’s executive ranks and became OPEC’s first female president is recast not as a professional navigating a world of already-wealthy men, but as the unseen owner and mastermind of one of those men’s empires. The effect is to inflate her role while infantilising his: the law and markets treat the properties and companies as his, but the story being sold asks the public to treat them, morally, as hers.
Criminal law is meant to follow evidence, not optics. If governments seize properties as Aluko’s, uphold them as Peters’, or allow them to be sold on by their male owners, they cannot honestly invite a jury to behave as though those same houses were really hers all along. Until prosecutors can move beyond “he paid and held the keys, therefore it was secretly hers” to clear proof of ownership and quid pro quo, the question hanging over this trial is not whether corruption in Nigeria’s oil sector should be punished. It is why, when the paper trail points so clearly to others, only one person is being asked to carry the weight.
Bolouere Opukiri can be reached via
Email: boluxxxx@gmail.com
Or Twitter – @boluxxxx
Bolouere Opukiri: Story that no longer holds shape – Case of Diezani Alison-Madueke
