Italian Prosecutors Sentenced for Withholding Evidence in Nigerian Oilfield Corruption Case

Two Milan prosecutors, Fabio De Pasquale and Sergio Spadaro, were sentenced to eight months in prison by an Italian court on Tuesday for failing to submit documents that could have bolstered the defense of energy company Eni in a major international corruption case. The case revolved around the $1.3 billion acquisition of a Nigerian oilfield and is considered one of the largest corruption cases in the oil industry.

Also read: Corrupt Funds Seized in Jersey Returned to Combat Financial Crime in Mozambique

Despite the prosecutors’ actions, Eni, Shell, and all defendants were acquitted by a Milan court in March 2021. The ruling dismissed allegations of corruption in the oilfield deal, which had taken place a decade earlier. However, a court in Brescia, which has jurisdiction over judicial matters in Milan, later ruled that De Pasquale and Spadaro had violated their legal duty by not providing documents potentially favourable to the defense.

A Controversial Ruling with Broader Implications

The Brescia court criticised the prosecutors for neglecting to include key evidence, such as a video recorded by a former Eni external lawyer, which was deemed relevant to the case. This omission, according to the court, undermined the defendants’ rights during the trial. Prosecutors in Brescia argued that De Pasquale and Spadaro intentionally withheld evidence that could have supported Eni’s position, warranting the eight-month sentence.

The prosecutors’ lawyer, Massimo Dinoia, announced plans to appeal the verdict, highlighting concerns about the implications for prosecutorial autonomy. “This sets a dangerous precedent as it questions a fundamental principle: the autonomy in the procedural choices of a public prosecutor,” Dinoia stated, arguing that there was no direct legal requirement compelling the prosecutors to file all documents.

Potential Compensation and Media Critique

If the ruling is upheld, De Pasquale, Spadaro, and the government could be required to compensate one of the acquitted defendants in a separate civil case. The Milan court’s earlier judgement, which acquitted the defendants, had already criticised the prosecutors’ conduct during the trial, suggesting their approach compromised the fairness of the legal process.

The Eni-Shell trial initially attracted global attention as it involved accusations of widespread corruption and alleged illegal payments related to the Nigerian oilfield acquisition. The acquittal was a significant outcome for Eni and Shell, as it exonerated them of criminal wrongdoing despite the controversy surrounding the deal.

Implications for Judicial Accountability

The sentencing of the prosecutors marks a rare instance of judicial officials facing criminal consequences for their conduct in a trial. It reflects increasing scrutiny over how legal processes are managed in high-profile cases, raising questions about the responsibilities of prosecutors to ensure a fair trial. As the appeals process unfolds, the case may set a legal precedent regarding the obligations of prosecutors to disclose evidence, especially in complex international cases involving major corporations and allegations of corruption.

Background of the Corruption Case

The corruption allegations stemmed from the acquisition of Nigeria’s OPL 245 oilfield, a lucrative offshore block that had been contested for years. The prosecution had alleged that bribes were paid to secure the deal, involving top officials from both companies and Nigerian government figures. However, after extensive legal battles, the court found insufficient evidence to support the charges, leading to the acquittal of all involved parties.

The Brescia court’s decision to hold the prosecutors accountable for their procedural choices adds another layer to the legal saga, potentially influencing how future corruption trials are conducted, particularly in cases involving powerful corporate interests.