The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation into drug-trafficking crimes in the early 1990s, according to a sworn declaration filed in U.S. federal court.
The declaration was submitted Aug. 28, 2026, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking access to FBI records relating to Tinubu.
In the filing, the FBI said the “responsive records herein were compiled in furtherance of the FBI’s investigation of multiple individuals for drug trafficking crimes,” and that “the court has already determined that an official acknowledgement had been made of an investigation of Bola Tinubu.”
The declaration follows an April 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who held that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could no longer use “Glomar” responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the investigation. Howell ruled that the agencies had failed to establish sufficient privacy grounds to conceal the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation and ordered them to process non-exempt records sought under FOIA.
Howell’s ruling did not establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offense or that he was convicted of any crime.
The latest declaration relates to FOIA requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan. Among the records sought were the “entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu” and FBI 302 interview records involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU between 1992 and 1993. Greenspan’s requests were part of a broader effort to obtain records concerning a Chicago heroin-trafficking operation that operated in the early 1990s.
The FBI has continued to withhold portions of the records, citing FOIA exemptions covering personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could endanger individuals. The agency said it could not publicly disclose the full basis for its reliance on some exemptions.
Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Washington-based lobbying firm hired by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 presidential election, publicized portions of the FBI declaration. In a post on X, the firm said it was reviewing a large volume of records received from the FBI and redacting portions where necessary.
“The FBI states under oath that the court has already determined that a criminal investigation of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu was officially acknowledged,” the firm said. It said it released the document to counter claims that Tinubu had never been criminally investigated and added: “That claim is false, as shown by the FBI’s sworn declaration below.”
Reacting to the development, Sunday Dare, special adviser to the president on media and public communications, dismissed the claims as politically motivated and accused Atiku of using a Washington-based lobbying firm to create controversy ahead of the 2027 election. Dare called the campaign “a clinical demonstration of desperation” and said the materials being circulated did not constitute an intelligence breakthrough.
“The coordinated media blitz orchestrated around a Washington, D.C. advisory firm is not an intelligence breakthrough; it is a clinical demonstration of desperation,” he said, adding that the firm’s statements should not be presented as the position of the U.S. government.
Dare challenged those making allegations to produce evidence supporting claims about classified intelligence. “Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence,” he said. “We demand that they produce the so-called ‘highly classified intelligence report,’ identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations.”
He also cited U.S. Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings, saying Atiku contracted Von Batten-Montague-York on a $1.2 million, 12-month retainer to “counterbalance” Nigerian government narratives and use historical U.S. judicial records for political leverage ahead of the 2027 elections.
Dare questioned the role of the firm’s principal, Dr. Karl-Marx Edward Okeke-Von Batten, in the ongoing FOIA litigation and said the firm had no role in the U.S. court proceedings, which he said have been active since 2023. “He has absolute zero to do with what is playing out in the U.S. court system,” Dare said. “The case has been active since 2023, and the FBI’s main concern is simply the protection of the techniques by which it gathers information and the safety of its sources.”
Dare also rejected any connection between Tinubu’s foreign travel and the FOIA proceedings, saying the president was on a previously scheduled annual leave. “This orchestrated distraction attempts to tie the president’s movements to foreign legal proceedings, but the facts are clear: President Tinubu is on a previously scheduled annual leave, and there is absolutely no connection between the president’s European trip and the ongoing U.S. FOIA proceedings,” he said.
Dare further cited comments by Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Afolabi, SAN, who addressed the FOIA proceedings on Channels Television. According to Dare, Afolabi said efforts to withhold portions of the records were based on U.S. legal provisions protecting confidential investigative processes and argued that if Tinubu had been criminally liable under U.S. law, American authorities would have indicted and prosecuted him at the time.
Dare accused the opposition of focusing on decades-old U.S. records instead of presenting Nigerians with detailed policy alternatives ahead of the 2027 elections. “The opposition’s 2027 framework remains devoid of noble economic blueprints, structural innovation, or issue-based engagement,” he said, adding that elections should be decided by domestic performance and policy proposals rather than controversies surrounding historical U.S. records.
Tinubu’s legal team has opposed further disclosure of the records, arguing that releasing personal information from government archives would violate his privacy rights.
Editor’s note: The ruling acknowledged only that an investigation occurred; it did not find criminal liability or conviction.
