In a major development with potentially wide-ranging political implications, a United States federal judge has ordered key American law enforcement agencies to release records tied to an alleged drug investigation involving Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu dating back to the early 1990s.
The ruling was handed down on Tuesday by Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who determined that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) improperly withheld records relating to Tinubu under a FOIA exemption commonly known as a “Glomar response”, a legal tactic that neither confirms nor denies the existence of requested documents.
Judge Howell said the rationale used by the agencies to keep the documents sealed “is at this point neither logical nor plausible,” especially since there is already official acknowledgment that Tinubu was involved in a federal investigation at the time. The court’s decision is seen as a partial victory for American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in June 2023.
Follow PenTalk News
Get breaking news, important updates and the latest stories directly on your phone.
FOIA Requests Targeted Major US Agencies
Greenspan’s initial FOIA request, and the subsequent lawsuit, named six federal agencies: the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Between 2022 and 2023, he submitted 12 requests seeking information about an alleged joint investigation involving Tinubu and other individuals connected to a heroin trafficking operation in the Chicago area.
The names mentioned in the FOIA filings include Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Abiodun Agbele, Lee Andrew Edwards, and Mueez Abegboyega Akande, all allegedly linked to the narcotics ring. Greenspan alleged that despite filing timely and detailed FOIA requests, the agencies unlawfully refused to produce the requested documents, issuing identical Glomar responses.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy later upheld the refusals, prompting Greenspan to escalate the matter through a federal lawsuit filed in June 2023.
Tinubu’s Attempt to Shield Records
In response to the escalating legal pressure, President Tinubu sought to intervene in the case. His legal representatives argued that the disclosure of sensitive materials, such as confidential tax records and federal law enforcement reports, would infringe upon his privacy under both the Privacy Act and FOIA exemptions.
Tinubu’s efforts were in reaction to a separate emergency motion filed by Greenspan in October 2023. Greenspan had urged the court to expedite the release of records ahead of a Nigerian Supreme Court hearing on the legitimacy of Tinubu’s 2023 presidential election victory. That motion was denied, but the broader FOIA case continued to proceed.
According to documents reviewed by the court, Tinubu’s name emerged in connection with a July 1993 civil forfeiture case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ, through the affidavit of IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss, sought the forfeiture of $460,000 held in Tinubu’s bank accounts, alleging the funds were linked to drug trafficking proceeds. Tinubu did not contest the forfeiture at the time but has always maintained his innocence and has never been criminally charged.
What the Court Ruled
On Tuesday, Judge Howell agreed in part with Greenspan’s arguments, especially concerning the FBI and DEA. She ruled that both agencies failed to justify their refusal to even acknowledge whether records exist.
“The claim that the Glomar responses were necessary to protect this information from public disclosure is at this point neither logical nor plausible,” Howell wrote. She emphasized that public interest in the integrity of a sitting foreign president, particularly one alleged to have connections to a drug investigation, outweighed privacy concerns.
The judge also agreed that Greenspan had presented multiple avenues to challenge the agencies’ Glomar responses, including the argument that previous disclosures, such as court filings, forfeiture records, and law enforcement acknowledgments, constituted an official release of information that invalidates the agencies’ claims of confidentiality.
However, the court did rule in favor of the CIA. Judge Howell found that Greenspan had failed to prove the intelligence agency had officially acknowledged the existence or nonexistence of any responsive records. Therefore, the CIA’s Glomar response remains in place.
How Tinubu’s Name Surfaced in a 1993 Drug Case
The documents submitted by Greenspan include a verified complaint filed in 1993 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case centered around heroin trafficking involving Nigerian nationals based in Chicago and Indiana. The affidavit by Special Agent Moss detailed how Abiodun Agbele, one of the alleged ring members, was arrested after selling heroin to an undercover agent.
Agbele later cooperated with authorities, leading investigators to identify financial transactions and real estate arrangements involving Mueez Akande, who was described by Agbele as a relative and alleged associate of Tinubu.
The affidavit further detailed that Akande arranged housing for Agbele and that funds linked to heroin sales were funneled through various bank accounts, some of which were reportedly controlled by Tinubu. These accounts became the focus of the 1993 forfeiture case.
“The investigation of money laundering of heroin proceeds led to probable cause that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were involved in criminal financial transactions,” the affidavit stated.
Despite these revelations, Tinubu has consistently denied any involvement in drug trafficking or money laundering and has never been prosecuted or convicted in connection to the case.
Political and Legal Ramifications
This court order arrives amid persistent questions about Tinubu’s past and political legitimacy. During the 2023 Nigerian presidential election, opponents Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi cited the 1993 forfeiture as grounds to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy. Their case was ultimately dismissed by Nigeria’s Presidential Election Petition Court, but concerns about Tinubu’s past have lingered in both public discourse and international diplomatic circles.
The latest U.S. court order reignites global interest in Tinubu’s history, particularly as Nigeria continues to position itself as a key player in West African politics and U.S.-Africa relations.
What Happens Next?
The court has directed the relevant agencies, excluding the CIA, to submit a joint status report by May 2, 2025, outlining the steps they are taking to comply with the order and address any unresolved issues, including potential redactions and withholdings.
Greenspan and his legal team have also narrowed their request to focus specifically on Tinubu and Agbele, meaning any records released will primarily relate to these two individuals.
While it remains to be seen exactly what the files will reveal, this decision marks a crucial turning point in a long-standing push for transparency over the U.S. government’s past dealings with Nigeria’s now-sitting president.
