The League of Legal Practitioners of Nigeria (LOLPON) has raised serious concerns over the ongoing United Kingdom trial involving former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, insisting that the proceedings must be guided strictly by due process, evidential integrity and internationally recognised standards of fair hearing.

Addressing a press conference in Abuja on Thursday, the group said its intervention was “neither political nor sentimental,” but based entirely on legal principles and the need to safeguard the integrity of justice in a case that has attracted intense global scrutiny for more than a decade.

National Secretary of LOLPON, Priscilla Makoshi Marcus Esq., said after conducting a detailed review of proceedings already in the public domain, the organisation was compelled to speak out over what it described as “significant concerns regarding the evidential foundation, proportionality, and overall fairness of the case as presently constituted.”

“At the centre of this matter lies a simple but fundamental legal principle — every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Marcus stated.

She argued that despite years of public allegations and sensational media narratives surrounding Nigeria’s petroleum sector, “nothing has yet been proven against the Defendant before the court beyond reasonable doubt.”

The group maintained that there was a critical distinction between public perception and the actual issues before the UK court, noting that the proceedings were not focused on sweeping allegations of large-scale corruption but rather on claims linked to accommodation, travel logistics, school fees and related expenses.

“This distinction is legally important because criminal liability cannot be established through public perception, recycled media narratives, or political assumptions,” Marcus said. “It must be established through admissible, credible, and internally consistent evidence.”

According to LOLPON, the prosecution under the UK Bribery Act 2010 carries a high burden of proving corrupt intent, improper influence and unlawful advantage directly tied to official conduct.

The organisation, however, argued that contradictions and evidential weaknesses had emerged during the proceedings, including reports that some individuals alleged to have paid bribes denied making such payments.

The group further claimed that prosecutors reportedly admitted there was no evidence that Alison-Madueke awarded contracts to undeserving companies on performance grounds.

“The case therefore does not rest upon proof of a direct ‘cash for contract’ arrangement, but rather upon a broader interpretation that the mere acceptance of assistance from persons connected to NNPC contractors should automatically amount to corruption,” Marcus said.

“That proposition is legally contestable. Under both Nigerian and English criminal jurisprudence, the essential elements of criminal liability remain Actus Reus and Mens Rea — the act itself and the corrupt intention behind it. Neither has been conclusively established.”

LOLPON also questioned the integrity of evidence handling in the matter, citing alleged gaps involving reimbursement records, invoices, diaries and other documents reportedly removed during searches in Abuja in 2015.

The organisation said the absence of such materials weakens efforts to determine who ultimately bore the disputed costs.

“Of even greater concern are the chain of custody issues raised during testimony,” Marcus added. “The court reportedly heard evidence that Nigerian investigators initially documented two bags of seized materials, only for three bags to later emerge during evidential review without satisfactory explanation.”

According to the group, such discrepancies were not “technical trivialities” but issues capable of undermining confidence in the reliability and integrity of exhibits tendered before the court.

LOLPON equally referenced alleged contradictions surrounding the Westminster Cars issue, Harrods purchases and luxury properties linked to businessmen associated with the matter.

It argued that legal ownership and payment trails remained central to determining criminal liability, stressing that “advisory involvement or stylistic input does not automatically translate into ownership, possession, or unlawful enrichment.”

The organisation further defended accommodation arrangements made for the former minister in London, insisting that rented apartments for a serving petroleum minister travelling with official delegations could not automatically be interpreted as bribery without proof of corrupt inducement.

“A rented apartment is not an asset transfer,” Marcus said. “Logistical facilitation by stakeholders does not automatically amount to bribery absent clear proof of corrupt inducement and reciprocal abuse of office.”

The group also expressed concern over what it described as weaknesses in witness credibility, claiming that some prosecution witnesses revised or retreated from earlier assertions during cross-examination.

It further criticised reported errors in the indictment, including alleged “cut and paste” mistakes involving financial figures, describing such lapses as troubling in a case of international significance.

Beyond the evidential issues, LOLPON said it was deeply concerned about the prolonged restrictions placed on Alison-Madueke since her arrest in 2015, noting that more than ten years later she had not been convicted of any offence.

“The prolonged withholding of travel documentation and effective restriction of movement for over a decade without final judicial determination raises legitimate questions under international fair hearing standards,” the organisation stated.

The group also cited humanitarian concerns, including reports that the former minister had been unable to freely return home or adequately attend to her aged mother.

While acknowledging that Alison-Madueke was not above the law, LOLPON noted her professional accomplishments, including her emergence as the first female President of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Conference

“That history does not place her above the law,” Marcus said, “but it does require that she be treated with fairness, objectivity, and freedom from prejudicial assumptions.”

The organisation also questioned what it termed selective prosecution, observing that several individuals alleged to have provided benefits in the case were not before the London court.

LOLPON maintained that justice must remain evidence-based, proportionate, procedurally fair and free from sensationalism or public pressure.

“Raising these concerns does not constitute disrespect to the British judiciary,” Marcus stated. “Rather, it reflects a principled insistence that international justice systems must maintain the highest standards of evidential integrity, fairness, and objectivity, especially in politically sensitive transnational prosecutions.”