The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has mandated the release of confidential information related to President Bola Tinubu, stemming from a federal investigation in the 1990s. The ruling was made by Judge Beryl Howell, who stated that withholding this information from public disclosure is “neither logical nor plausible.”
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by American citizen Aaron Greenspan in June 2023. Greenspan invoked the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against several U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, DEA, IRS, and CIA, alleging they failed to release documents pertaining to investigations involving Tinubu and another individual, Abiodun Agbele.
Greenspan’s requests were focused on a joint investigation into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s, which he claimed involved money laundering activities. He submitted 12 FOIA requests to six different agencies, seeking criminal investigative records about Tinubu and three other individuals allegedly linked to the drug ring.
In response to his requests, the agencies issued “Glomar responses,” refusing to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records. Greenspan contested these responses at the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agencies’ refusals.
Following this, Greenspan filed a lawsuit on June 12, 2023, naming multiple agencies as defendants. The CIA was later added to the case, challenging its own Glomar response to Greenspan’s FOIA request. On October 20, 2023, Greenspan sought an emergency hearing to compel the agencies to produce the requested records, citing an impending Nigerian Supreme Court hearing regarding Tinubu’s election.
However, his emergency motion was denied on October 23, 2023, as it did not meet the requirements for emergency injunctive relief. On the same day, President Tinubu sought to intervene in the case, emphasizing his privacy interests regarding his tax records and documents from federal law enforcement.
In 1993, Tinubu reportedly forfeited $460,000 to the U.S. government, which was linked to narcotics trafficking. This forfeiture became a significant point of contention during his presidential campaign, but the Presidential Election Petition Court ultimately dismissed challenges to his eligibility.
Judge Howell’s ruling on Tuesday partially favored Greenspan, stating that the Glomar responses from the FBI and DEA were improper. The judge noted that it was acknowledged that Tinubu was a subject of investigation, making the agencies’ claims of needing to protect this information from public disclosure untenable.
The judge explained that a FOIA requester can challenge an agency’s Glomar response in two ways: by contesting the agency’s assertion of harm from confirming or denying the existence of records, and by demonstrating that the agency has officially acknowledged information through prior disclosures.
In this case, Howell found that Greenspan had made valid challenges to the agencies’ responses, asserting that both the DEA and FBI had confirmed investigations involving Tinubu and Agbele. He ruled that the public interest in releasing such information outweighed any privacy concerns.
While the CIA’s Glomar response was upheld, the judge ordered the remaining agencies to file a joint report by May 2, 2024, detailing the status of outstanding issues in the case. The court also noted that five of Greenspan’s FOIA requests remain unresolved, pending further legal proceedings.
Supporting documents submitted by Greenspan included a verified complaint from the DOJ detailing the civil forfeiture of Tinubu’s funds, which were allegedly connected to drug trafficking. An affidavit from an IRS special agent outlined the investigation into Agbele and confirmed that both the FBI and DEA had investigated Tinubu in relation to the drug trafficking activities.
This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing scrutiny of President Tinubu’s past and the implications of the U.S. investigation on his political career. As the case unfolds, the release of these documents could have far-reaching consequences for Tinubu and his administration.