By Orkula Shaagee
The Presidency yesterday said there was nothing new to reveal about the case involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States more than 30 years ago.
The State House was reacting to the United States (US) District Court of Columbia order that the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, FBI should reveal President Bola Tinubu’s information.
Tinubu’s spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, who said there was nothing new to reveal about the case, explained that the reports by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA have been in the public space for more than 30 years.
Reacting to questions from journalists, Onanuga said the reports did not indict the Nigerian leader.
Judge Beryl Howell gave the order on Tuesday.
The State House was reacting to the United States (US) District Court of Columbia order that the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, FBI should reveal President Bola Tinubu’s information.
Tinubu’s spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, who said there was nothing new to reveal about the case, explained that the reports by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA have been in the public space for more than 30 years.
Reacting to questions from journalists, Onanuga said the reports did not indict the Nigerian leader.
Judge Beryl Howell gave the order on Tuesday.
The development followed a motion by Aaron Greenspan, an American who is seeking a reconsideration of an earlier ruling.
Howell said protecting the information from public disclosure is “neither logical nor plausible.”
Greenspan had accused the FBI of violating the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, by failing to release within the statutory time “documents relating to purported federal investigations into” Tinubu and one Abiodun Agbele.
Tinubu was claimed to have forfeited $460,000 to the American government in 1993 after authorities linked the funds to proceeds of narcotics trafficking.
Reacting, Onanuga posted on X: “Journalists have sought the Presidency’s reaction to the ruling last Tuesday by a Washington DC judge ordering the US FBI and DEA to release reports connected with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“Our response is as follows:
“There is nothing new to be revealed. The report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report have been in the public space for more than 30 years.
“The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader. The lawyers are examining the ruling.”
Howell said protecting the information from public disclosure is “neither logical nor plausible.”
Greenspan had accused the FBI of violating the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, by failing to release within the statutory time “documents relating to purported federal investigations into” Tinubu and one Abiodun Agbele.
Tinubu was claimed to have forfeited $460,000 to the American government in 1993 after authorities linked the funds to proceeds of narcotics trafficking.
Reacting, Onanuga posted on X: “Journalists have sought the Presidency’s reaction to the ruling last Tuesday by a Washington DC judge ordering the US FBI and DEA to release reports connected with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“Our response is as follows:
“There is nothing new to be revealed. The report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report have been in the public space for more than 30 years.
“The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader. The lawyers are examining the ruling.”
US court orders FBI, DEA to release documents on Tinubu’s records
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have received an order to release documents about the criminal investigation of President Bola Tinubu over alleged drug trafficking.
In a ruling dated April 8, Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court of Columbia ordered both agencies to search for and process non-exempt records tied to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by American researcher Aaron Greenspan.
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted 12 FOIA requests, seeking information on a Chicago drug ring that operated in the early 1990s and records on Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
Previously, the FBI and DEA issued “Glomar responses” indicating their refusal to confirm or deny the existence of requested records.
However, the court ruled that such responses were improper in this case, as the agencies are now ordered to conduct a search and release non-exempt materials on the matter.
The judgement read: “The FBI and DEA have both officially confirmed investigations of Tinubu relating to the drug trafficking ring.
Previously, the FBI and DEA issued “Glomar responses” indicating their refusal to confirm or deny the existence of requested records.
However, the court ruled that such responses were improper in this case, as the agencies are now ordered to conduct a search and release non-exempt materials on the matter.
The judgement read: “The FBI and DEA have both officially confirmed investigations of Tinubu relating to the drug trafficking ring.
“Any privacy interests implicated by the FOIA requests to the FBI and DEA for records about Tinubu are overcome by the public interest in the release of such information.
“Since the FBI and DEA have provided no information to establish that a cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation.
“They have failed to meet their burden to sustain their Glomar responses and provide an additional reason why these responses must be lifted.”
“Since the FBI and DEA have provided no information to establish that a cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation.
“They have failed to meet their burden to sustain their Glomar responses and provide an additional reason why these responses must be lifted.”
Upholding the CIA’s Glomar response, the judge ruled that the “Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to each of the four Glomar responses asserted by defendants FBI and DEA, while 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 CIA, meanwhile, is entitled to judgment in its favour in this case. The remaining parties are directed to file jointly, by May 2, 2025, a report on the status of any outstanding issues in this case, as described in the accompanying order.”
“Accordingly, the FBI and DEA must search for and process non-exempt records responsive to the FOIA requests directed to these agencies.
“The CIA, meanwhile, is entitled to judgment in its favour in this case. The remaining parties are directed to file jointly, by May 2, 2025, a report on the status of any outstanding issues in this case, as described in the accompanying order.”