Former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has strongly denied all bribery and corruption charges against her in a UK court.

She appeared at Southwark Crown Court in London where she told the judge that she never asked for, took, or received any bribe while in office. She said she always tried to act fairly and impartially in her duties.

Prosecutors had accused her of accepting benefits from Nigerian businessmen in exchange for awarding government contracts. The claims include large sums spent on her behalf, such as over £2 million at Harrods and £4.6 million on refurbishing properties in London and Buckinghamshire. Diezani explained that some expenses during her official work were reimbursed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) and handled through a service company set up in London.

In her defence, Diezani spoke about the difficult conditions she faced while serving in Nigeria. She mentioned serious security threats, including the risk of kidnapping, and said some members of her family had been abducted in the past. She also described Nigeria as a very patriarchal society where it was not easy for a woman to hold such a high position.

Diezani told the court that she had tried to fight corruption during her time in office. She added that she was unaware of certain cash deliveries made to her and insisted that the money had nothing to do with her. Two other people are also standing trial alongside her oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde and her brother Doye Agama who have denied their own related charges.

The case has drawn attention because of Diezani’s former powerful role in Nigeria’s oil sector. Many Nigerians have followed the trial closely as it touches on long-standing issues of corruption in government. The court proceedings are still ongoing, with more hearings expected in the coming weeks.

This denial marks a key moment in the high-profile case. While prosecutors continue to present their evidence, Diezani maintains her innocence and says she did not abuse her office. The outcome of the trial could have important implications for how similar cases involving former public officials are handled in the future.