A U.S. federal judge has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release investigative records related to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, stemming from an alleged narcotics trafficking investigation in the 1990s.
The ruling, issued by Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, rejected the government agencies’ attempts to withhold the documents under the “Glomar response.” This policy allows agencies to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records. Judge Howell ruled that the agencies had not provided sufficient justification for withholding the records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and she noted that their claim that the Glomar responses were necessary to protect the information from public disclosure was neither logical nor plausible.
The case arose when Aaron Greenspan, an American transparency advocate and founder of PlainSite.org, filed a lawsuit in June 2023 after submitting 12 FOIA requests to various U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. These requests sought details about a federal investigation into a heroin trafficking network allegedly involving Tinubu and others, including Abiodun Agbele, Mueez Akande, and Lee Andrew Edwards.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests were initially denied by the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of State, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all of which invoked Glomar responses. Greenspan argued that the agencies had improperly withheld information of significant public interest, particularly a 1993 verified complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking the forfeiture of $460,000 in funds linked to Tinubu, which the U.S. government alleged were proceeds of drug trafficking.
Court documents also include an affidavit from Kevin Moss, a Special Agent with the IRS at the time, which detailed the activities of a heroin ring operating in the Chicago area. Moss’s affidavit revealed that Tinubu was under investigation for financial transactions allegedly involved in laundering proceeds from narcotics trafficking. The affidavit also tied Tinubu to Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele, noting that Agbele, arrested after selling heroin to an undercover DEA agent, cooperated with investigators and further implicated others within the network.
In response to the FOIA lawsuit, President Tinubu intervened in October 2023, citing privacy concerns and objecting to the release of “confidential tax records” and “documents from federal law enforcement agencies.” However, Judge Howell ruled that the public’s interest in understanding the records surrounding Tinubu’s alleged involvement outweighed the privacy interests claimed by the President. The judge emphasized the importance of transparency, stating that “the public interest in learning about a sitting president’s possible connection to a major drug investigation is undeniably significant.”
The CIA successfully defended its Glomar response, with the court ruling that Greenspan failed to demonstrate that the agency had officially acknowledged the existence or nonexistence of responsive records. However, the judge ordered all other agencies, excluding the CIA, to jointly file a report by May 2 on the status of outstanding issues in the case.
Legal analysts suggest that the ruling could force the release of sensitive documents that have long been the subject of speculation and political controversy in Nigeria. The forfeiture of the $460,000 resurfaced during the 2023 Nigerian presidential elections, with opponents of Tinubu questioning his eligibility. However, Nigeria’s election tribunal ultimately dismissed these challenges.
In a statement, Greenspan expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision, asserting, “Transparency must prevail over secrecy when it comes to public officials. The American public, as well as Nigerians, deserve to know the truth.”
The case traces its origins to November 2024, when SaharaReporters reported that U.S. law enforcement agencies had invoked the Glomar response over FOIA requests concerning Tinubu. These requests had been filed by Greenspan to the FBI, CIA, DEA, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of State, and Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The case, numbered 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, involves Greenspan suing the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and other agencies.
The agencies had argued that releasing information on Tinubu could “cause damage to U.S. national security,” a position laid out in a memorandum filed by the CIA, FBI, and DEA. The CIA provided additional rationale, stating that confirming or denying the existence of records about Tinubu could jeopardize intelligence sources and methods, including the identity of human sources. It also warned that doing so could expose the agency to retaliatory actions against its informants.
In the same case, the remaining disputes involve the Glomar responses filed by the DEA and other agencies regarding their records on Tinubu and Agbele. Greenspan had also sued the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury, IRS, but voluntarily dismissed these defendants on August 13, 2024.
The term “Glomar response” originated from a FOIA case involving the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny any records related to the Hughes Glomar Explorer ship, as doing so could compromise national security. Glomar responses are generally considered valid if they fall within FOIA exemptions, which were cited by the FBI and DEA in refusing to release records about Tinubu, claiming that such information could infringe on the privacy of individuals involved in law enforcement investigations.
On September 6, 2023, SaharaReporters reported that Nigeria’s Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja struck out several paragraphs in the petition filed by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), seeking to disqualify President Tinubu. The tribunal also dismissed several exhibits and witness statements presented by Atiku to support his allegations of electoral irregularities. The court ruled that the petition lacked sufficient evidence to stand, a stance that was also taken in a similar petition filed by Peter Obi of the Labour Party.
Credit: Premium Times