U.S. Court Orders FBI and DEA to Release Records on President Bola Tinubu's Alleged 1990s Drug Probe
- Victor Nwoko
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release documents linked to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's alleged involvement in a decades-old drug trafficking investigation in Chicago.
The ruling, issued on April 8, 2025, by Judge Beryl Howell, marked a legal victory for American legal transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests between 2022 and 2023. Greenspan had sought information from six U.S. agencies—the FBI, DEA, CIA, IRS, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, and the State Department—regarding a heroin trafficking ring that operated in the early 1990s. Among those named were Bola Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
The FBI, DEA, and other agencies had initially issued what is known as a Glomar response—refusing to confirm or deny the existence of the records. However, Judge Howell found this position unjustified, stating that public interest outweighs any claimed privacy concerns. The court noted that Tinubu’s alleged connection to the investigation had already been disclosed in public documents and other sources over the years.
In the ruling, Judge Howell emphasized that the FBI and DEA had failed to demonstrate a valid privacy interest in withholding confirmation of Tinubu’s alleged involvement, adding that both agencies had already confirmed investigations into Tinubu. The court ordered the agencies to search for and process all non-exempt records related to the requests. The CIA's Glomar response was upheld due to previously acknowledged valid grounds for withholding its records.
The ruling revives attention to a long-running controversy around Tinubu’s alleged links to a 1993 case in which he forfeited $460,000 to U.S. authorities believed to be proceeds of drug trafficking. While no criminal charges were filed, the forfeiture became a contentious topic during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential elections.
The Nigerian Presidency responded by downplaying the significance of the U.S. court order, describing the matter as a “non-event” and arguing that the information has long been in the public domain. A presidential aide insisted that the ruling presented no new facts, while another official stated that the government’s legal team was reviewing the decision, adding that it poses no threat to the President’s legitimacy.
Despite the presidency’s stance, the order has sparked renewed political debate. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who contested against Tinubu in 2023, welcomed the ruling, calling for full transparency and stating that if any disqualifying evidence is revealed, Tinubu should step down. Atiku emphasized the need for integrity in leadership, particularly given Nigeria’s status as the most populous Black nation in the world.
Atiku’s spokesperson noted that the court’s directive was a vindication of efforts to seek clarity over Tinubu’s past, particularly regarding both the 1993 forfeiture and the authenticity of his academic records. Atiku argued that the case carries significant implications for Nigeria’s global image and domestic democratic standards.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) also responded to the development, saying it provides Nigerians with a unique opportunity to know the true background of their President. PDP Deputy National Youth Leader Timothy Osadolor urged Tinubu to respect the court’s ruling and refrain from appealing the decision, adding that transparency at the highest level of governance is essential for national accountability.
Osadolor also criticized the reluctance of Nigerian institutions to scrutinize the matter in the same manner, stating that the U.S. court’s move sets a valuable example of legal integrity. He called on Tinubu to use the moment to clear his name if he has nothing to hide.
The ruling mandates the FBI and DEA to complete their searches and begin processing the documents. All involved parties are to file a joint status report with the court by May 2, 2025. As the deadline approaches, attention now shifts to the potential content of the records and what they might reveal about the President's past.
Comments