Presidency Denies Allegations as Tinubu Lawyers Scramble After U.S. Court Unseals Crime Records

Abuja, Nigeria – The Nigerian Presidency has responded to a recent ruling by a United States court ordering the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release previously redacted records connected to investigations involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the Presidency dismissed the ruling as inconsequential, asserting that the documents in question had already been in the public domain for over three decades and contain no new or incriminating information about Nigeria’s sitting President.

---

Background: U.S. Court Orders Release of Tinubu-Related FBI, DEA Files

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a ruling striking down the so-called “Glomar responses” used by the FBI and DEA to deny or withhold the existence of records related to investigations involving President Tinubu.

The judge ruled that such denials were “neither logical nor plausible,” given that the agencies had previously acknowledged Tinubu’s involvement in past probes. The court ordered the agencies to lift redactions and release the requested files anew. A joint report on the status of the release is expected to be filed by May 2, 2025.

This legal development is part of a broader suit filed by Aaron Greenspan, an American transparency activist, who sought records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The suit names several U.S. government agencies including the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), CIA, and the U.S. Department of State.

---

Presidency’s Position: “No New Information”

In response to growing media attention and public discourse, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy, issued a statement insisting that the documents contain nothing new that hasn’t already been dissected in public forums since the early 1990s.

“There is nothing new to be revealed. The said report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report have been in the public space for more than 30 years,” Onanuga stated.

He further emphasized that the documents “do not in any way indict the Nigerian leader,” adding that the President’s legal team is currently reviewing the U.S. court ruling to determine its full implications.

---

Also Read: Tinubu Orders Immediate Halt to Unauthorized 2027 Re-election Campaigns Amid Disqualification Risk

---

Details of the U.S. Investigation: Drug Trafficking, Forfeiture, and Financial Transactions

The core of the matter dates back to a 1993 civil forfeiture case in the Northern District of Illinois, in which the U.S. Department of Justice sought the seizure of funds held in bank accounts associated with Bola Tinubu. These accounts were allegedly linked to proceeds from heroin trafficking operations based in the Chicago area.

A key affidavit submitted in that case was authored by Special Agent Kevin Moss of the IRS. The document details:

• Investigations into drug ring members including Abiodun Agbele, Mueez Akande, and others.
• The alleged role of Mr. Tinubu as the controller of bank accounts used in laundering proceeds from drug transactions.
• Probable cause claims that Tinubu’s bank accounts were involved in financial activities violating U.S. narcotics and money laundering laws.

The affidavit also noted that Mr. Tinubu was never charged criminally and that the funds in question were voluntarily forfeited, not seized as a result of criminal conviction.

---

What the Court Ruling Means

Legal experts clarify that the recent U.S. court ruling does not accuse President Tinubu of any crime, nor does it re-open the 1993 case. Instead, the ruling deals with transparency and public access to government-held information.

“What we’re dealing with here is a FOIA case—not a criminal case,” said U.S.-based legal analyst Thomas Radcliffe. “The judge simply found that it was no longer defensible to keep those documents redacted, especially after decades of public discussion.”

---

Presidency’s Legal Strategy and Political Implications

While the Presidency insists that the issue has been exaggerated by political adversaries and media speculation, the timing of the court ruling has renewed discussions about Tinubu’s early career in the United States.

Sources inside the President’s legal team say a comprehensive review of the judgment is underway to ensure that the administration is prepared for any political or diplomatic fallout.

“President Tinubu has nothing to hide. His record is public. Any attempt to use outdated records for political gain is baseless,” said a source familiar with the internal discussions.

Analysts agree that while the court ruling may not carry immediate legal consequences, it could have political ramifications, particularly as speculation swirls around the 2027 elections.

---

Media and Public Reaction

The issue has reignited fierce debate on social media and in political circles. While critics argue that the case casts a shadow over Nigeria’s international image, supporters of the President maintain that the matter is a settled one.

Some Nigerian media outlets and civil society organizations are now calling for full transparency and an official response from U.S. agencies once the redacted files are made public.

“This is not about guilt or innocence anymore—it’s about transparency and how our leaders respond to historical scrutiny,” said Ayodeji Olanrewaju, a governance activist.

---

Greenspan’s FOIA Lawsuit: A Broader Transparency Push

The FOIA suit filed by Aaron Greenspan is part of a broader campaign to compel U.S. law enforcement agencies to disclose records of international interest. In this specific case, Greenspan also requested files involving Lee Andrew Edwards and others allegedly associated with the same drug trafficking ring.

The suit challenges the U.S. government’s use of “Glomar responses”—a term used when agencies neither confirm nor deny the existence of records—as unconstitutional in contexts where public knowledge already exists.

Judge Howell agreed, noting that since Mr. Tinubu’s association with the investigation is already public, further withholding of records is “illogical and lacks credibility.”

---

Conclusion: Transparency vs. Political Weaponization

While the Presidency insists that there is nothing new or incriminating in the now-declassified reports, the court ruling ensures that these historical documents will resurface in public discourse.

The development underscores the growing intersection of global transparency laws, digital activism, and political accountability, especially for leaders of democratic nations.

As Nigeria continues its journey under President Tinubu’s leadership, the administration is expected to maintain a balance between addressing legacy issues and focusing on current governance priorities, such as economic revitalization, national security, and social development.

The Presidency has urged Nigerians to remain focused on national development goals and to avoid being distracted by recycled narratives with no new legal standing.