The former minister told a UK court on Wednesday that decisions on government contracts were processed through multiple agencies before reaching her desk.
She testified during proceedings related to allegations of improper influence in the awarding of public contracts, stating that her role involved final review only, after technical and financial assessments had been completed by other government bodies.
The minister emphasized that she did not initiate or direct contract evaluations, and that any recommendations she received had already undergone scrutiny by procurement units, legal advisors, and finance departments.
Her testimony aimed to clarify the chain of responsibility in contract approvals, asserting that she acted within established procedural boundaries and did not override institutional checks.
The court heard that the contracts in question were linked to infrastructure projects funded through bilateral agreements, though no specific project was named during her testimony.
Legal representatives for the prosecution questioned whether her oversight role allowed for undue influence, particularly given her prior position as a senior government official.
The minister maintained that she had no authority to alter technical specifications or financial terms, and that her approval was contingent on compliance with existing guidelines.
She added that all contract files were documented and traceable, and that she had never requested preferential treatment for any contractor.
The judge adjourned the session to allow for further review of procurement records, with no ruling issued at the close of proceedings.
The case remains ongoing, and the minister has not been charged with any criminal offense.
