A United States federal court has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release documents relating to Nigerian President Bola Tinubu.
With the imminent release of the records, long-standing controversies surrounding President Tinubu’s past may likely be laid to rest.
Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the directive on Tuesday in response to a motion filed by American citizen Aaron Greenspan, who is challenging the withholding of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In a ruling that could cause the public disclosure of previously withheld documents, Judge Howell stated that the agencies’ justification for secrecy was “neither logical nor plausible.”
Greenspan had accused the law enforcement bodies of failing to comply with statutory FOIA obligations by not releasing documents pertaining to alleged federal investigations involving President Tinubu and one Abiodun Agbele.
President Tinubu, a member of Nigeria’s ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), has faced scrutiny over a 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States, where $460,000 was seized by U.S. authorities in connection with narcotics trafficking. Though Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing, the case resurfaced during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election when opposition candidates Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi cited it in court challenges to his eligibility.Nigerian cultural tours
The Presidential Election Petition Court ultimately dismissed the suits and upheld Tinubu’s victory.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA improperly used so-called “Glomar responses”—a term used when agencies neither confirm nor deny the existence of records—to withhold information.
The court found that both agencies “failed to show that they properly invoked the FOIA,” noting that Tinubu’s connection to investigations had already been acknowledged.
Judge Howell said, “The claim that the Glomar responses were necessary to protect this information from public disclosure is at this point neither logical nor plausible.”
She further explained that FOIA requesters can challenge a Glomar response by arguing that it fails to justify harm under a valid FOIA exemption or by showing the agency has already acknowledged the information through prior disclosure.
According to the judge, the plaintiff contended that, “(1) DEA has officially confirmed investigations of Agbele’s involvement in the drug trafficking ring,
(2) the FBI and DEA have both officially confirmed investigations of Tinubu relating to the drug trafficking ring,
(3) any privacy interests implicated by the FOIA requests to the FBI and DEA for records about Tinubu are overcome by the public interest in release of such information, and
(4) the CIA has officially acknowledged records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request about Tinubu.”
