A member of President Bola Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, Wole Afolabi (SAN), has explained why the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are opposing the release of some records connected to allegations involving the Nigerian president.
Afolabi dismissed claims that Tinubu’s lawyers were attempting to suppress damaging information, saying their position was based strictly on provisions of United States law.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria made the clarification during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics amid an ongoing legal dispute over the release of US government records relating to Tinubu.
According to Afolabi, the US authorities have already released some documents but are withholding portions they consider exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
He explained that the FBI and DEA had argued that releasing certain information could expose confidential sources, compromise agents and reveal investigative techniques.
Afolabi said Tinubu’s lawyers would not be acting professionally if they failed to rely on legal protections available under US law.
“It will amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers,” he said.
The lawyer further rejected suggestions that the withholding of the documents was designed specifically to protect Tinubu.
He said the concerns raised by the US agencies centred on safeguarding their personnel, informants and investigative procedures rather than shielding the Nigerian president.
“They are saying that if we discuss this publicly, we would compromise our agents; we would compromise the techniques that we use to get information,” Afolabi said.
He added that the agencies were also concerned that disclosure could expose people who had provided information to them.
“They have sources, they have informants. They don’t want them to be compromised,” he stated.
On allegations linking Tinubu to drug trafficking, Afolabi maintained that there was no evidence showing that the president committed such an offence.
He argued that if US authorities had sufficient evidence to establish Tinubu’s involvement in drug trafficking, they would have prosecuted him.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it,” he said.
Afolabi also pointed out that being investigated by law enforcement authorities does not automatically mean that an individual has committed a crime.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes,” he said, stressing that the presumption of innocence remained applicable.
The lawyer, however, declined to explain Tinubu’s position regarding the $460,000 that was forfeited to the US government in the 1990s.
He cited attorney-client privilege, explaining that he could not disclose confidential information shared with him by his client.
“Unfortunately, I can’t divulge any information that my client had disclosed to me confidentially,” Afolabi said.
READ ALSO:
