Ex-Opec head confronted tycoon over his threat to ‘take her down’, court hears

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

A former president of Opec who is accused of accepting bribes from oil tycoons threatened to inform the authorities after she learned of an apparent plot to “take her down”, a court has heard.

Diezani Alison-Madueke is alleged to have had a heated encounter with one of the executives said to have bankrolled her luxury lifestyle in London when she was Nigeria’s oil minister.

“I will be happy to escort all of you to jail along with myself,” she is alleged to have told him as she confronted the businessman with her concerns that he was plotting against her.

Prosecutors on Wednesday set out further extraordinary details of their case against Alison-Madueke, which she denies.

Alexandra Healy KC claimed that wealthy Nigerians would accompany her on head-turning shopping trips in central London, and that one would even run personal “errands” for her at department store Harrods.

Another oil executive paid for flights on private jets for Alison-Madueke to destinations including Vienna, Hamburg and Doha, costing tens of thousands of dollars each, the barrister claimed.

Southwark Crown Court also heard allegations that Alison-Madueke’s brother Doye Agama, a former archbishop, was part of a conspiracy to conceal bribes disguised as charitable donations to his church in Manchester.

Three defendants are on trial in the high-profile corruption case, including Olatimbo Ayinde, an oil industry executive who is charged with two counts of bribery.

Alison-Madueke is charged with five counts of accepting a bribe and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. All three defendants — Alison-Madueke, Agama and Ayinde — deny the charges against them.

Prosecutors contend that various oil executives funnelled bribes to Alison-Madueke when she was in Goodluck Jonathan’s Nigerian government between 2010 and 2015 in the hope of securing lucrative deals with the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.

The court heard on Wednesday that some of these relationships had at times been fraught. Jurors were shown transcripts of recordings on Alison-Madueke’s mobile seized by investigators.

In one conversation in May 2014, she is alleged to have told a businessman that she had been “really annoyed . . . because of what I am learning . . . I’ve heard this, take her down”.

“You’ll be shocked what I will do,” the transcript continued. “Because when it comes to that, I will come out and tell the Nigerian people this is what happened.”

The businessman is alleged to have replied: “I swear to my God, on the lives of my children, I never ever mentioned your name or any name.”

Healy, for the prosecution, provided a breakdown on Wednesday of spending sprees that she claims Alison-Madueke undertook in exclusive districts of London, allegedly funded by bribes.

On one visit to a Mayfair chinaware store, Healy said, Alison-Madueke made “an impression, as she had an entourage of about four to five people with her”.

Someone present “recalled her saying words to the effect of, ‘I don’t even know why I’m buying this, I haven’t got the room for it.’”

Healy said that on a visit to a rug concession in Harrods, the minister “looked extremely glamorous”, and that her appearance created “excitement” on the shop floor as her group was “spending a lot of money”.

Jurors were also shown text messages that prosecutors claim show a tycoon completing “errands” for the then minister, including requests for skincare products and suitcases.

The then minister also used the pseudonym Sharon D when buying high-end decorative arts and furniture from a store in Marylebone, the barrister claimed.

Healy also said there was an “overwhelming inference to be drawn” that a bribe had been hidden behind a charitable donation.

A businessman offered £1.1mn to fund a property purchase for Agama’s church in Manchester, but the name of the donor had been given incorrectly when the vendors’ representatives queried the source of funds, jurors were told.

The prosecution claimed it was “significant” that the name had been mistakenly listed given the size of the planned donation. “It happened by circuitous means that are indicative of wrongdoing,” Healy added.

Prosecutors have said that there was no evidence that contracts were awarded to unqualified companies, but that it was “improper” for Alison-Madueke to have accepted benefits from executives who stood to benefit.

The case continues.