FBI Confirms Tinubu Drug Investigation After FOIA Ruling

• The FBI has confirmed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation into drug-trafficking crimes in the early 1990s.
• This confirmation came via a sworn declaration filed in U.S. federal court on August 28, 2026, as part of an ongoing FOIA case.
• The disclosure followed an April 2025 ruling by US District Judge Beryl Howell, which prevented the FBI and DEA from using 'Glomar' responses to deny or confirm the existence of records.
• American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan initiated the FOIA requests, seeking Tinubu's entire FBI file and interview records from 1992-1993.
• A lobbying firm hired by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar publicized portions of the declaration, while President Tinubu's adviser dismissed the claims as politically motivated.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has officially confirmed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation concerning drug-trafficking offenses in the early 1990s.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has officially confirmed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation concerning drug-trafficking offenses in the early 1990s. This significant disclosure emerged from a sworn declaration submitted to a U.S. federal court on August 28, 2026, as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. The FBI's filing explicitly stated that the relevant records were compiled during an investigation into multiple individuals for drug trafficking crimes, further noting that the court had already acknowledged the existence of an official investigation into Bola Tinubu.

This FBI declaration Tinubu follows a pivotal ruling in April 2025 by US District Judge Beryl Howell. Judge Howell determined that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could no longer employ "Glomar" responses—a tactic to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records—when addressing inquiries related to this particular investigation. Her ruling underscored that the agencies had failed to present adequate privacy justifications to withhold the fact that Tinubu had been the focus of a criminal inquiry, subsequently ordering them to process non-exempt records sought under FOIA.

The recent FBI confirmation regarding the Bola Tinubu drug trafficking probe stems directly from FOIA requests initiated by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan. Greenspan specifically sought access to the "entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu," alongside FBI 302 interview records pertaining to Tinubu, linked to FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU, covering the period between 1992 and 1993.

Greenspan's comprehensive FOIA case Tinubu FBI records forms part of a broader investigative effort to obtain documents related to a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking operation active during the early 1990s. While the FBI has made this crucial confirmation, it continues to withhold certain portions of the requested records. The agency cites several FOIA exemptions, including those protecting personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques, and information whose disclosure could potentially endanger individuals, though it has not publicly elaborated on the full basis for all these exemptions.

The publicization of portions of the FBI declaration was orchestrated by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm. This firm, engaged by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar in anticipation of the 2027 presidential election, disseminated the information via its X handle, indicating it was reviewing a substantial volume of records received from the FBI and redacting necessary sections. The firm explicitly stated that the FBI's sworn declaration confirmed a court-acknowledged criminal investigation into the Nigerian President.

The lobbying firm asserted its intention to release these documents to counter previous claims that President Tinubu had never been criminally investigated, directly challenging assertions that he was merely seeking to protect his privacy. In response, Sunday Dare, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, dismissed the circulating claims as politically motivated. He accused Atiku Abubakar of utilizing the Washington-based firm to generate controversy ahead of the 2027 election, characterizing the campaign as a "clinical demonstration of desperation." Dare further questioned the credibility of the lobbying firm's representations, arguing that their statements should not be misconstrued as the official stance of the U.S. government, and that the materials did not represent an intelligence breakthrough.

The judicial decision by US District Judge Beryl Howell Tinubu represents a significant legal precedent regarding the application of the Freedom of Information Act, particularly in compelling federal agencies to disclose historical investigative records. Her ruling effectively curtailed the use of "Glomar" responses in this context, emphasizing that agencies must provide sufficient justification for withholding even the existence of an investigation, especially when public interest or prior acknowledgments are involved.

It is crucial to note, however, that Judge Howell's ruling and the subsequent FBI declaration do not establish that Bola Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offense, nor do they confirm any conviction for such crimes. The confirmation solely pertains to the fact that he was the subject of a criminal investigation. The ongoing withholding of certain record portions by the FBI, citing various exemptions, means that a complete picture of the early 1990s probe remains partially obscured.

This development underscores the effectiveness of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in compelling US federal agencies to disclose historical investigative records, even concerning high-profile individuals. Lawyers and compliance officers should note the judicial precedent set by Judge Howell regarding the limitations of 'Glomar' responses when seeking information for due diligence or public interest investigations.

Source: Original reporting via unnamed source