A U.S. federal judge has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release investigative records relating to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, stemming from a purported narcotics trafficking investigation in the 1990s.
Judge Beryl Howell gave the order on Tuesday.
The development was sequel to a motion by Aaron Greenspan, an American who is seeking a reconsideration of an earlier ruling.
These requests sought details of a federal investigation into a heroin trafficking network allegedly involving Tinubu and others, including Abiodun Agbele, Mueez Akande, and Lee Andrew Edwards.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests were earlier denied by the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of State, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all of which invoked Glomar responses.
In his lawsuit, Greenspan argued that the agencies had improperly withheld information of significant public interest.
He also cited a verified complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1993 seeking the forfeiture of $460,000 in funds linked to Bola Tinubu, which the U.S. government alleged were proceeds of drug trafficking.
The court documents include an affidavit by Kevin Moss, a Special Agent with the IRS at the time, who detailed the activities of a heroin ring operating in the Chicago area.
The affidavit indicated that Tinubu was being investigated in connection with financial transactions that allegedly laundered proceeds from narcotics trafficking.
“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 sworn affidavit.
The same affidavit tied Tinubu to Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele, noting that Agbele, arrested after selling white heroin to an undercover DEA agent, cooperated with investigators and revealed further links within the network.
In response to the FOIA lawsuit, President Tinubu intervened in October 2023, citing privacy concerns and objecting to the release of “confidential tax records” and “documents from federal law enforcement agencies.”
However, Judge Howell ruled that the public interest in understanding the records surrounding Tinubu’s alleged involvement outweighed the privacy interests claimed by the President.
“The public interest in learning about a sitting president’s possible connection to a major drug investigation is undeniably significant,” the judge wrote.
Although the CIA successfully defended its Glomar response — with the court ruling that Greenspan failed to show that the agency had officially acknowledged the existence or nonexistence of responsive records — the judge ordered all other agencies, excluding the CIA, to jointly file a report by May 2 on the status of outstanding issues in the case.
Legal analysts say the ruling could force the release of sensitive documents that have long been the subject of speculation and political controversy in Nigeria.
The forfeiture of the $460,000 in 1993 resurfaced during the 2023 Nigerian presidential elections, as opponents of Tinubu questioned his eligibility.
However, Nigeria’s election tribunal ultimately dismissed those challenges.
Reacting to the U.S. court’s decision, Greenspan said in a statement, “Transparency must prevail over secrecy when it comes to public officials. The American public, as well as Nigerians, deserve to know the truth.”
- Background
In November 2024, SaharaReporters reported that U.S. law enforcement agencies had invoked the Glomar response over requests seeking criminal investigative documents concerning President Tinubu and others.
This followed numerous Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests that Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan submitted to the FBI, CIA, DEA, Executive Office for U.S Attorneys, Department of State, and the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The District of Columbia case, numbered 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, involves Greenspan versus the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and others.
The requests sought criminal investigative documents concerning third parties, Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Akande, and Agbele, who, according to Plaintiff, participated in “an international drug trafficking and money laundering ring with operations in Chicago, Illinois.”
The agencies insisted that giving out information on Nigerian president, Bola Tinubu, could “cause damage to U.S. national security.”
The position was stated in a memorandum filed by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In 2023, the court declined an emergency application seeking to compel top US law enforcement agencies to hasten the release of confidential information on President Tinubu.
However, the three US agencies filed their defence against the summary judgment concerning President Bola Tinubu’s investigation records.
The CIA provided an additional rationale for its Glomar response, saying “the CIA does not reveal the identity of its human sources [because] revealing the identity of a confidential source could expose Agency tradecraft, other human sources, and specific intelligence interests and activities.”
Mary C. Williams, the Litigation Information Review Officer for the Information Review and Release Division at the CIA further explained, “Human sources can be expected to furnish information to the CIA only when they are confident the CIA can and will do everything in its power to prevent the public disclosure of their cooperation.
“In the case of a person who has been cooperating with the CIA, official confirmation of that cooperation could cause the targets to take retaliatory action against that person or against their family or friends.
“It also places in jeopardy every individual with whom the cooperating individual has had contact. Thus, the indiscretion of one source in a chain of intelligence sources can damage an entire spectrum of sources.
“As such, confirming or denying the existence of records on a particular foreign national, like Tinubu, reasonably could be expected to cause damage to U.S. national security by indicating whether or not the CIA maintained any human intelligence sources related to Tinubu, and identifying any access or lack of access any such sources had to intelligence concerning him.”
According to the court document, the remaining disputes involve Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiff’s request for records about Tinubu and the DEA’s Glomar response to Plaintiff’s request for records about Agbele.
The Plaintiff also sued the Executive Office for U.S Attorneys, Department of State, and the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, but on August 13, 2024, he voluntarily dismissed those defendants.
The phrase “Glomar response” originated from a FOIA case that sought information concerning a ship named the “Hughes Glomar Explorer,” and the CIA refused to confirm or deny its relationship with the Glomar vessel because to do so would compromise the national security or divulge intelligence sources and methods.
According to the court document, Glomar responses are proper “if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records falls within a FOIA exemption.”
The FBI and DEA properly asserted Glomar responses under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) “because the requests seek criminal investigative documents pertaining to third parties that, if they existed, would interfere with the third parties’ substantial privacy interests in not being associated with law enforcement investigative records”.
On September 6, 2023, SaharaReporters reported that the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja on Wednesday struck out several paragraphs in the petition that Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) relied upon to push President Tinubu out of office.
Also, the Tribunal rejected and discounted several exhibits and witness statements the former Vice President tendered to prove his allegations of irregularities and malpractices in the February 25 presidential election.
Delivering a ruling on some objections argued by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) on behalf of Tinubu, Justice Moses Ugoh held that several parts of Atiku’s petition lacked legs upon which they could stand and survive and were, hence, not competent.
The court said several facts fundamentally required to support the petition were not provided by Atiku, a position the court also took on the petition filed by his counterpart in the Labour Party, Peter Obi.
