Tinubu Linked to Multiple US Drug Cases as Fresh Bid to Release Files Emerges

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been linked to at least three separate United States cases connected to an alleged drug-trafficking and money-laundering network investigated by American authorities in the 1990s.

The latest disclosure was made by American journalist and transparency activist Aaron Greenspan during an interview with Laolu Akande, founder of Empowered Newswire.

Greenspan is currently involved in a long-running legal battle in the United States over access to historical records held by American law enforcement agencies concerning Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele.

According to Greenspan, the records point to three separate US cases associated with the same alleged drug network.

He also raised the possibility of a fourth case involving Tinubu, which he said could be a criminal indictment filed under seal.

However, Greenspan stressed that he has not established that such an indictment exists.

The development comes as the Freedom of Information Act case seeking the release of the records continues before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, is a civil action concerning access to government records.

It is not itself a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. Court records show that Greenspan filed multiple FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 with agencies including the FBI, DEA, CIA and other US government departments.

Greenspan said the three cases he identified include a series of criminal indictments from 1992 involving people allegedly connected to the network, a separate criminal matter involving Agbele, and a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.

“There’s at least three known cases now that are tied to this drug ring,” Greenspan said.

“There is the 1992 set of criminal indictments, which is where this transcript comes from, and that’s available in the National Archives. There’s the unknown date indictment of Mr Agbele, and then there’s the civil forfeiture case, which involves Bola Tinubu.”

The journalist said the records he has examined contain considerable details about financial transactions, bank accounts and people connected to the investigation.

He said the information has raised questions about whether US authorities investigated Tinubu but eventually decided against prosecution, or whether another criminal proceeding could have been filed but remains sealed.

“There could be a fourth. There could be a criminal indictment of Bola Tinubu as well, and that’s what we’re trying to do,” he said.

Greenspan, however, acknowledged the limits of the claim.

“I don’t have any evidence that such a deal had been made, to be very clear,” he said when discussing the possibility of a sealed proceeding.

“That remains an open question right now.”

The distinction is important because the three cases identified by Greenspan should not be interpreted as three criminal prosecutions against Tinubu.

The 1992 indictments he referenced involved other individuals associated with the alleged drug network.

The case involving Agbele is also separate from the 1993 forfeiture proceeding involving funds in an account associated with Tinubu.

Court records from the FOIA litigation confirm that Greenspan’s requests concern historical investigative records relating to an alleged international drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation that operated in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The records sought include material concerning Tinubu and Agbele.

Greenspan has also described Tinubu’s alleged connection to the investigation as financial rather than direct involvement in the distribution of heroin.

“Bola Tinubu comes into this because he was not distributing heroin directly. He was (accused of) laundering money for the proceeds from the heroin distribution,” he said.

The claim relates to historical testimony and investigative material surrounding an alleged heroin network.

Greenspan has cited testimony involving US law enforcement officials in proceedings connected to the network and has argued that the records provide a broader picture of the investigation.

The third matter is the 1993 civil forfeiture case involving approximately $460,000.

That proceeding concerned money held in an account in Tinubu’s name and resulted in the funds being forfeited to the United States.

The case was a civil forfeiture proceeding, rather than a criminal conviction against Tinubu.

The distinction has been central to the response from the Nigerian Presidency.

In September, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the ongoing US litigation should not be portrayed as a criminal case against Tinubu.

“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the Presidency said.

The Presidency has maintained that the court proceedings concern Greenspan’s attempts to obtain government records and do not amount to a criminal trial of the Nigerian president.

Tinubu was allowed to intervene in the FOIA case after expressing privacy and legal concerns over the potential release of some of the records.

The litigation took another major turn in April 2025 when US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on the federal agencies’ earlier refusal to confirm or deny whether certain records existed.

The ruling followed Greenspan’s challenge to the agencies’ use of what is known as a “Glomar” response.

The case has remained active since then.

In August 2026, the FBI submitted records relating to the Tinubu investigation to Judge Howell for confidential review rather than releasing them directly to Greenspan.

The documents were submitted under seal and were not immediately made public. Politics Nigeria had earlier reported the development in its coverage of the case.