The Shadow of Investigation: Tinubu’s Criminal History and the U.S. Legal Battle
5 min read
—By Eculaw Media
Two cases in the United States almost stopped Bola Ahmed Tinubu from becoming the president of Nigeria even after INEC had declared him the winner amidst controversy.
The first case was IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In re Application of ATIKU ABUBAKAR For an Order Directing Discovery from CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1782 No. 23 CV 05099 Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado.
The second case was UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARON GREENSPAN, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell
Neither of these two cases could prevent the Supreme Court of Nigeria from declaring Bola Tinubu the President of Nigeria. However, it seems that the matter is far from over. The first case focused on Tinubu’s academic records, aiming to demonstrate that he lacked the requisite school certificate. The second case concerns Tinubu’s criminal history in the United States. The request for information regarding his criminal record stemmed from a forfeiture case involving Tinubu in the early 1990s in Chicago. Records from this earlier case indicated that Tinubu was investigated for drug-related offenses, but he ultimately forfeited funds traced to narcotics without facing criminal prosecution.
After Tinubu was declared the winner of the presidential elections in Nigeria, Aaron Greespan, acting in the public interest, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State, the CIA, the FBI, and the DEA. He sought to compel these agencies to provide him with information regarding their investigations into Tinubu for drug-related offenses. Greespan filed the lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after his attempts to obtain the information directly from those agencies were unsuccessful.
In response to the request, the CIA, FBI, and DEA issued a blanket refusal, stating that they would “neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records pursuant to Exemptions 6 & 7(C) of the FOIA,” arguing that even acknowledging the existence of law enforcement records concerning another individual could reasonably be seen as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. They cited the need to protect Tinubu’s privacy interests.
This type of blanket refusal is known as a Glomar response. A Glomar response is a legal mechanism used by government agencies when asked to confirm or deny the existence of records related to a FOIA request. It is often employed when the mere acknowledgment of the existence or non-existence of the requested records could reveal sensitive or classified information. Essentially, a Glomar response allows an agency to maintain secrecy without disclosing specific details about the records in question.
All efforts to have the court decide on these issues before the Nigerian Supreme Court concluded its cases challenging Tinubu’s presidency were unsuccessful. The U.S. District Court determined that there was no pressing need to expedite the matter. However, on April 8, 2025, the court issued its ruling on whether U.S. agencies should release information regarding their investigations into Tinubu’s involvement in narcotics.
In its opinion, the court stated:
“As a general rule, agencies must acknowledge the existence of information responsive to a FOIA request and provide specific, non-conclusory justifications for withholding that information.” Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2011). An exception exists, however, for cases where “merely acknowledging the existence of responsive records would itself cause harm cognizable under a FOIA exception.” PETA v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 745 F.3d 535, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (brackets omitted) (quoting Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In that circumstance, “an agency can issue a Glomar response, refusing to confirm or deny its possession of responsive documents.” Id. “A Glomar response is valid if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records falls within a FOIA exemption,” id. (quoting Wolf, 473 F.3d at 374), and this determination requires “courts [to] apply the general exemption review standards established in non-Glomar cases.” Wolf, 473 F.3d at 374 (citing Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100, 1103-05 (D.C. Cir. 1982).”
The court, however, noted that Glomar responses would not be applicable to the agencies involved because Tinubu’s status as a subject of drug-related criminal investigations had been previously acknowledged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Chicago cases from the 1990s. The court concluded that prior disclosure by the DOJ prevented the FBI and DEA, which are part of the DOJ, from asserting Glomar defenses. However, the CIA, being separate from the DOJ, could still claim such a defense. The court reasoned:
“DOJ’s public acknowledgment that Tinubu was criminally investigated as part of a broader investigation involving both the FBI and DEA also pierces the FBI and DEA’s Glomar responses for criminal investigative files related to Tinubu. … The [DOJ] affidavit ‘specifically’ details why ‘there is probable cause to believe that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were involved in financial transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957 and represent proceeds of drug trafficking.’”
The court further stated:
“Taken together, the information in the affidavit constitutes an official acknowledgment that Tinubu was one subject of a criminal investigation conducted by, among other law enforcement agencies, the FBI and DEA. … Since both the FBI and DEA are components of the DOJ, both are bound by this official acknowledgment and thus cannot refuse to confirm or deny the mere existence of an investigation of Tinubu.”
In conclusion, Judge Beryl A. Howell stated:
“For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to each of the four Glomar responses asserted by the defendants FBI and DEA, while the defendant CIA is entitled to summary judgment, since its Glomar response was properly asserted. Accordingly, the FBI and DEA must search for and process non-exempt records responsive to the FOIA requests directed to these agencies.”
The implication of this ruling is that the criminal investigation conducted by U.S. law enforcement agencies regarding Tinubu’s role in drug crimes in the U.S. during the early 1990s may soon be made public. It is widely believed that the information could be damaging to Tinubu, which explains his extensive efforts to keep it hidden. The involvement of the CIA, FBI, and DEA in withholding this information raises several questions: (1) Is the information potentially harmful to Tinubu if released? and (2) Could it indicate that Tinubu may have entered into a relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies that would warrant efforts to protect him? What is the nature of such a relationship? Could the President of Nigeria potentially be an informant or agent of a foreign government?
*Research conducted by Eculaw*
