A UNITED STATES federal court’s recent ruling ordering the release of long-sealed investigative records linked to Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has reignited global conversations about transparency, accountability, and the character of those who occupy high public office in Africa’s most populous nation.
While the Presidency insists “there is nothing new,” the development marks a critical juncture in the enduring scrutiny surrounding Tinubu’s decades-old drug-related case in the US—and what it means for Nigeria’s democratic ethos.
A Case That Refuses to Fade
On 8 April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a landmark ruling compelling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release non-exempt documents related to a drug trafficking investigation dating back to the early 1990s. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case was initiated by American legal transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan, who submitted 12 FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 concerning a Chicago-based heroin ring involving four individuals, including Tinubu.
The FBI and DEA had for years issued “Glomar responses”—a legal term used when an agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of records. However, Judge Howell ruled that such responses were no longer tenable, as both agencies had “effectively confirmed” that Tinubu was indeed under investigation.
“The FBI and DEA have both officially confirmed investigations of Tinubu relating to the drug trafficking ring,” Judge Howell wrote, asserting that “privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in the release of such information.”
Tinubu’s name first surfaced in U.S. law enforcement records in 1993 when the United States government filed a civil forfeiture case involving $460,000 suspected to be proceeds from narcotics trafficking. Although the case did not result in a criminal conviction, the Nigerian politician agreed to forfeit the funds in a settlement with U.S. authorities, without admitting wrongdoing.
According to Premium Times, the funds were seized following an investigation that linked the accounts to a heroin trafficking ring operating in the Chicago area during the early 1990s. U.S. court records from the Northern District of Illinois showed that Tinubu had maintained accounts with First Heritage Bank and Citibank, through which the funds were moved.
Court records obtained in earlier FOIA releases identify Tinubu as a financial conduit for individuals linked to heroin distribution operations. Specifically, records indicated that funds passing through Tinubu’s accounts were allegedly traced to drug proceeds handled by Mueez Akande and others.
Legal experts have long debated the implications of civil forfeiture without a conviction. According to a 2021 report by the US-based Institute for Justice, over 80% of federal forfeiture cases between 2000 and 2019 did not result in accompanying criminal charges, raising questions about due process. Specifically, the report found that only 16% of the Department of Justice’s forfeitures during that period were processed criminally, while the remaining 84% were civil forfeitures, with 93% of those processed administratively.
This data underscores concerns about the fairness of civil forfeiture practices, where property can be seized without the owner being charged with a crime. The Institute for Justice argues that such practices pose significant threats to property and due process rights.
What the Court’s Ruling Actually Does
The new ruling does not indict Tinubu but mandates that the FBI and DEA identify and release previously unreleased records—unless specifically exempted by law—on or before the next court status update due 2 May 2025.
Significantly, the court upheld the CIA’s right to withhold its own records on the case, suggesting that different standards of confidentiality apply across agencies.
Greenspan’s platform, PlainSite, which tracks legal accountability through open records, described the ruling as a “victory for transparency.” The case has now become a touchstone in global debates about access to information, particularly involving elected officials in democratic nations.
Nigerian Government’s Response: ‘No Fresh Concerns’
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga, maintained that “there is nothing new to be revealed,” claiming that the FBI and DEA reports have been in the public domain “for more than 30 years.” According to Onanuga, the documents do not implicate the Nigerian leader.
“There is nothing new to be revealed. The report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA has been in the public space for more than 30 years. The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader,” he stated via social media.
Similarly, Presidential aide on policy communications, Daniel Bwala, said on national television that the court ruling is being “misconstrued” by political opponents, adding, “Nothing’s new at all… the buzz is media-generated.”
Opposition Weighs In: Call for Accountability
Former Vice President and 2023 presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, however, sees the ruling differently. He welcomed the court’s decision, describing it as a chance for full disclosure and demanding that anyone found to have breached the law should “step aside.”
In a statement through his media aide, Atiku said, “Anyone occupying the Presidency must not be of tainted character. The matter of the presidency of Nigeria involves the world’s most populous Black nation. Transparency is not optional.”
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) also echoed the call, with Deputy National Youth Leader Timothy Osadolor urging President Tinubu to “respect the rule of law” and allow the release process to proceed unhindered.
“If he truly has nothing to hide, this is the best time to come clean before the Nigerian people,” Osadolor said.
While President Tinubu’s supporters may dismiss the development as political theatre, governance experts warn that the reputational cost for Nigeria remains considerable. According to Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, Nigeria ranked 145th out of 180 countries, scoring 25 out of 100 points. This reflects a slight improvement from its 2022 ranking of 150th with a score of 24. However, the country’s position remains significantly below the global average score of 43 and the Sub-Saharan Africa average of 33.
With over 200 million citizens and a burgeoning youth population, Nigeria’s international credibility is increasingly seen as linked to the moral standing of its elected leaders. Governance experts and civil society groups have repeatedly argued that sustained transparency—even over decades-old controversies—is essential for reinforcing institutional trust and democratic accountability.
Research from organisations such as the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) and Afrobarometer underscores that public scrutiny of political leaders strengthens democratic resilience.
In its 2024 report Reflecting on 2024: A Year of Challenges and Lessons, the CDD noted that promoting transparency in governance is key to restoring public confidence in democratic institutions. Similarly, Afrobarometer’s flagship survey for 2024 found that a majority of African citizens continue to demand stronger accountability from their governments.
All parties involved in the FOIA litigation have been ordered to submit a progress report to the US court by 2 May 2025.
The FBI and DEA are expected to start processing non-exempt records, while the CIA remains exempt under national security laws.
