In a seismic development that could have far-reaching political and diplomatic implications, a United States federal judge has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release confidential investigative records relating to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. These records stem from a long-suspected narcotics trafficking investigation from the 1990s.
The ruling, issued by Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rebuked the U.S. government agencies’ reliance on the controversial “Glomar response” — a legal strategy that allows federal agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of sensitive records.
“The claim that the Glomar responses were necessary to protect this information from public disclosure is at this point neither logical nor plausible,” Judge Howell stated in her decision. She ruled that the FBI and DEA had failed to justify their secrecy under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), thus mandating the release of relevant documents.
The lawsuit that led to the explosive ruling was filed by Aaron Greenspan, a transparency advocate and founder of PlainSite.org. Greenspan had submitted 12 FOIA requests across several U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, seeking documentation on a heroin trafficking network allegedly linked to Tinubu and associates — including Abiodun Agbele, Mueez Akande, and Lee Andrew Edwards.
All agencies initially denied the requests, invoking the Glomar doctrine. However, Greenspan persisted, arguing that the information was of profound public interest — not only for Americans but also for Nigerians and the international community.
Central to the controversy is a verified 1993 complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which sought the forfeiture of $460,000 traced to bank accounts allegedly controlled by Tinubu. The U.S. government claimed these funds were proceeds of drug trafficking. The complaint included a sworn affidavit from IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss, which detailed how Tinubu allegedly moved illicit funds linked to a heroin ring operating in Chicago.
“There is probable cause to believe that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were involved in financial transactions in violation of U.S. laws and represent proceeds of drug trafficking,” Moss stated in his affidavit.
Further, the affidavit linked Tinubu to Akande and Agbele, the latter of whom was arrested after selling white heroin to an undercover DEA agent. Agbele later cooperated with authorities, providing more damning revelations about the drug syndicate.
President Tinubu, through his legal team, intervened in the lawsuit in October 2023, raising privacy concerns and objecting to the release of “confidential tax records” and law enforcement files. But Judge Howell dismissed these concerns, affirming that the public’s right to know about potential criminal conduct by a sitting president outweighed his privacy rights.
“The public interest in learning about a sitting president’s possible connection to a major drug investigation is undeniably significant,” the judge declared.
While the CIA successfully upheld its Glomar response, citing national security and the need to protect intelligence sources, Judge Howell directed all other involved agencies to submit a status report by May 2, 2025, on outstanding issues in the case.
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, has peeled back layers of secrecy surrounding one of Nigeria’s most powerful political figures. The FOIA requests had initially been submitted to the FBI, DEA, CIA, IRS, Department of State, Department of Treasury, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys — all of which stonewalled the disclosures citing exemptions related to privacy, law enforcement sensitivity, and national security.
In a November 2024 report, SaharaReporters disclosed that the agencies argued the release of information concerning Tinubu could “cause damage to U.S. national security.” The CIA, in particular, underscored that acknowledging or denying the existence of such documents could compromise its intelligence-gathering operations and place informants in jeopardy.
“Human sources can be expected to furnish information to the CIA only when they are confident the Agency can and will do everything in its power to prevent the public disclosure of their cooperation,” CIA official Mary C. Williams explained in court documents.
The ruling has revived heated debates about Tinubu’s past and its implications for his legitimacy. The $460,000 forfeiture case had resurfaced prominently during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential campaign, with Tinubu’s opponents citing it as grounds for disqualification. Nevertheless, Nigeria’s Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissed the claims due to insufficient evidence.
In September 2023, the tribunal struck out several portions of Atiku Abubakar’s petition challenging the election outcome, including those tied to Tinubu’s alleged criminal past. Similar rulings were delivered against Peter Obi of the Labour Party.
Now, with a U.S. judge mandating the release of the very records Tinubu’s critics had long demanded, the issue is back in the spotlight — and with renewed intensity.
Reacting to the court’s decision, Greenspan said, “Transparency must prevail over secrecy when it comes to public officials. The American public, as well as Nigerians, deserve to know the truth.”
As the world awaits the May 2 status report and the potential release of sensitive documents, legal analysts predict a political firestorm. If the records substantiate claims of Tinubu’s involvement in drug trafficking, they could trigger diplomatic scrutiny, calls for accountability, and possibly even legal consequences in the U.S. or abroad.
For now, the ruling marks a historic win for government transparency and a major blow to efforts at shielding public officials from scrutiny through bureaucratic opacity.
PIONEER NEWS 