On April 8, 2025, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to disclose records related to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The decision stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, who sought documents tied to investigations from the 1990s that allegedly linked Tinubu to drug trafficking and money laundering activities in the United States.
The court, presided over by Judge Beryl Howell, found that the FBI and DEA could not rely on a “Glomar response”—a refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records—due to prior public acknowledgment of the investigations. Notably, a 1993 settlement involving the forfeiture of $460,000 linked to Tinubu had been referenced in earlier court filings, providing a basis for the judge’s order. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), also named in the lawsuit, was not required to release documents, as the court found insufficient evidence of prior disclosure.
The ruling mandates that the FBI and DEA produce relevant records or provide a detailed justification for withholding them. A joint status report from the agencies is expected by May 2, 2025, outlining their compliance with the court’s directive. As of now, no documents have been made public, and the specifics of what the records may contain remain undisclosed.
The case has drawn attention in Nigeria and beyond, given President Tinubu’s prominence as the leader of Africa’s most populous nation. Tinubu, who assumed office in May 2023, has faced scrutiny over past allegations, though his administration has consistently dismissed such claims as unfounded or politically motivated. The ordered release of records could shed light on decades-old investigations, but until the documents are disclosed, their significance remains a matter of speculation.
This development underscores ongoing debates about transparency and the role of FOIA in accessing government records. For now, observers await further updates as the May 2 deadline approaches, which may clarify the scope and impact of the court’s decision.
