President Bola Tinubu’s legal team in the United States has dismissed concerns over the continued withholding of FBI and DEA records concerning the Nigerian president, saying the legal challenge is based on standard US law and privacy protections rather than an attempt to shield Tinubu from damaging information.
Wole Afolabi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a member of Tinubu’s US legal team, stated this during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics amid a legal battle over the release of records linked to historical investigations involving Tinubu.
The dispute centres on hundreds of pages of documents that investigative journalist Aaron Greenspan is trying to get released in their complete form through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the US Department of Justice, FBI and DEA. The case also concerns records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the US involving approximately $460,000 associated with Tinubu. The president has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Afolabi said the US government has already released documents relating to the matter but is resisting the disclosure of information it considers exempt under the Freedom of Information Act. He said the FBI and DEA had raised concerns that releasing some of the information could compromise their agents, confidential sources and investigative methods.
According to Afolabi, the US government’s filings focused on protecting agents, sources and investigative techniques rather than shielding the Nigerian president. “They are saying that if we discuss this publicly, we would compromise our agents; we would compromise the techniques that we use to get information,” Afolabi said.
The FBI has separately warned that its informants and agents could be targeted and assassinated if the records are made public. In a court filing, the bureau said it relied on FOIA Exemption 7(F), alongside other privacy exemptions, and that disclosing the names or identifying information of certain individuals could endanger their lives or physical safety.
Addressing allegations that Tinubu was involved in drug trafficking, Afolabi argued that if US authorities had sufficient evidence to prosecute Tinubu, he would have been indicted. “If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it,” Afolabi said.
Afolabi challenged critics to consider how US authorities have historically dealt with allegations of drug trafficking against foreign political leaders. He cited the case of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, who was apprehended by US forces and prosecuted for drug trafficking-related offences, as well as other foreign officials who have faced drug charges in the US. “What’s so special about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that he can travel to and from America without being arrested, detained, or interviewed for anything?” Afolabi asked.
Afolabi also stressed that being investigated by law enforcement did not necessarily mean that a person had committed an offence. “Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes,” he said, adding that the presumption of innocence remained applicable.
Tinubu’s legal team also argued that the president retains privacy rights despite being Nigeria’s president. In a 16-page court filing, they argued that records dating back more than three decades, when Tinubu was a private individual, should remain protected under US law. “The Intervenor should retain his full privacy interests because he was not a public official in 1993,” the submission stated.
The lawyers also argued that Greenspan’s FOIA requests were intended to uncover possible criminal records concerning an individual and “utilize those to influence politics in a foreign nation,” adding that “neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are ‘public interests’ that FOIA recognises.”
The legal proceedings over the records are still ongoing, with the plaintiff expected to file a response by September 11 and the US Department of Justice having until September 18 to respond, after which the judge will consider the matter.
“Basically, what we are doing is we are staying within the confines of the law. And we advise our client to do so. It’s what the law avails him,” Afolabi said.
