By Jemimah Wellington, JKNewsMedia Reporter
THE NIGERIAN Federal Government, on Sunday, dismissed growing media attention surrounding a United States court ruling that ordered the release of federal investigative documents connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, describing the matter as legally settled and politically sensationalised.
Presidential Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, downplayed the implications of the ruling, asserting that the documents in question—linked to a 1990s US narcotics investigation—have been publicly accessible for decades and contain no fresh allegations or indictments against the Nigerian leader.
“There is nothing new to be revealed,” Onanuga said via his verified X handle. “The report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report have been in the public space for more than 30 years. The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader.”
He added that President Tinubu’s legal team is currently reviewing the judgment, which was handed down last Tuesday by Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Transparency Lawsuit Forces Document Disclosure
The court ruling follows a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by US transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan in June 2023.
Greenspan had requested records related to a heroin trafficking ring allegedly operating in Chicago in the early 1990s, naming Tinubu among four individuals reportedly linked to the probe.
Initially, several US agencies—including the FBI, DEA, IRS, EOUSA, and State Department—issued “Glomar” responses, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of such records.
After the Department of Justice upheld those refusals, Greenspan escalated the matter to federal court.
Judge Howell ruled that the Glomar denials were “neither logical nor plausible,” ordering the FBI and DEA to release the requested documents under FOIA.
The CIA, which issued a similar Glomar response, was later added to the list of defendants.
While Greenspan filed an emergency motion in October 2023 seeking expedited release of the documents ahead of Nigeria’s Supreme Court ruling on Tinubu’s electoral victory, the motion was denied.
Tinubu’s legal team also moved to intervene, citing privacy concerns over tax and law enforcement records.
Controversial 1993 Forfeiture Resurfaces
At the heart of the case lies a 1993 civil forfeiture of $460,000 by US authorities from bank accounts linked to Tinubu, after investigators alleged the funds were proceeds of drug trafficking.
The forfeiture was a focal point during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election tribunal, where opposition candidates Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi argued that the episode rendered Tinubu ineligible to contest.
The Presidential Election Petition Court dismissed those claims.
Court documents filed by Greenspan included a 1993 complaint and affidavit submitted by the US Department of Justice in the Northern District of Illinois.
The affidavit, sworn by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss, detailed a heroin distribution network allegedly operated by Abiodun Agbele, who was arrested in a sting operation and later cooperated with authorities.
According to the affidavit, Agbele identified Mueez Akande—allegedly Tinubu’s associate—as a family member who provided him with accommodation.
DEA investigators claimed the network laundered proceeds through bank accounts, some allegedly controlled by Tinubu.
Despite these claims, Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing. He has never been criminally charged or indicted in relation to the investigation.
Presidency, Allies Reject ‘Political Nonsense’
Special Adviser Onanuga reiterated that the newly ordered document release adds nothing substantive to the public domain.
“Journalists have sought the presidency’s reaction to the ruling last Tuesday,” he said. “The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader. The lawyers are examining the ruling.”
Presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala alleged that the development was a politically engineered ploy by opposition figures attempting to remain relevant.
“This is politically mechanised nonsense packaged as a legal breakthrough,” Bwala wrote on X. “There is nothing these opposition under the auspices of coalition for a wild goose chase cannot try to do.”
He also pointed to internal political manoeuvring by former President Muhammadu Buhari’s allies as part of a broader effort to discredit the current administration without offering viable governance alternatives.
Legal Experts Urge Caution
Analysts on legal matters have advised restraint, stressing that the US District Court ruling is still subject to appeal or a stay of execution.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Dayo Akinlaja described the judgment as non-final: “The order does not signal the end of the matter… it is still amenable to appeal.”
Barrister Jibrin S. Jibrin explained that while the ruling mandates disclosure, US authorities must still follow procedural steps.
“Unless stayed or appealed, the relevant documents should be released without delay—subject to administrative conditions such as fee payment,” he told reporters.
Jibrin added that the applicant’s motives are legally immaterial. “What matters is whether the person making the application is entitled under the law to do so, not the timing or the reason behind it.”
Continued Scrutiny Despite Presidential Immunity
The latest legal development has reignited long-standing public interest in a saga stretching back over 30 years. Still, Tinubu’s legal team insists it has no bearing on his presidency or international standing.
Senior Advocate Babatunde Ogala, a member of Tinubu’s election defence team, affirmed that the President has travelled freely to the US since the 1990s and continues to enjoy full diplomatic access.
“There’s nothing new in this case that has not already been put in the public domain,” Ogala said. “The President has travelled to the United States several times since 1994. This ruling does not affect that reality.”
