Date: August 31, 2026
Reporter: Kim White
A sworn declaration filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a United States federal court has acknowledged that Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation connected to drug-trafficking allegations in the early 1990s, according to court documents cited in a report by SaharaReporters.
The declaration was submitted on August 28, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as part of a long-running Freedom of Information Act dispute involving requests for FBI and other federal records concerning Tinubu.
The FBI said in the sworn filing that the records being sought were compiled as part of an investigation involving multiple individuals for drug-trafficking crimes. The agency also referred to an earlier court determination that an official acknowledgement had already been made regarding an investigation of Tinubu.
The disclosure marks a significant development in a legal dispute that has continued for several years over whether the U.S. government should release records relating to a Chicago-area drug investigation from the early 1990s.
The case stems from Freedom of Information Act requests filed by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan between 2022 and 2023. Greenspan sought records from several U.S. federal agencies relating to an investigation involving Tinubu and other individuals connected to a heroin-trafficking investigation.
Among the records sought were FBI files concerning Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to an FBI case from the 1992–1993 period. FBI Form 302 documents generally contain agents' summaries of interviews conducted during federal investigations.
The dispute eventually reached federal court after U.S. agencies initially relied on what is known as a “Glomar” response, under which a government agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist when doing so could reveal information protected under law.
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration had not established sufficient privacy grounds to continue refusing to acknowledge the existence of records connected to Tinubu's investigation. The court ordered the agencies to process records that were not otherwise exempt from disclosure.
The latest FBI declaration provides additional context to that earlier ruling. The agency maintains that portions of the requested records can still be withheld under exemptions contained in U.S. freedom-of-information law.
The FBI has cited exemptions relating to personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and information that could potentially endanger individuals. The bureau has also argued that releasing certain details could expose investigative methods used by federal law-enforcement agencies.
The case is formally identified as Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Greenspan's requests focused on a group of individuals connected to a Chicago heroin-trafficking investigation that operated during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The records sought included information concerning Tinubu as well as other people identified in the investigation.
The new declaration has generated renewed political controversy in Nigeria because of Tinubu's position as president and the country's approach to the 2027 presidential election.
A Washington-based lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, which has been hired by former Nigerian Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, publicized portions of the FBI declaration and presented it as evidence that the U.S. government had formally acknowledged a criminal investigation involving Tinubu.
The firm said the declaration contradicted claims that Tinubu had never been criminally investigated and argued that the FBI's sworn statement demonstrated that the existence of the investigation had been officially recognized by the U.S. courts.
The development has intensified political debate over Tinubu's history in the United States and whether additional FBI and DEA records should be made public.
However, the FBI declaration does not establish that Tinubu was convicted of drug trafficking, nor does it constitute a judicial finding that he committed a drug-trafficking offence.
The distinction is important because being the subject of an investigation does not, by itself, establish criminal guilt. The current legal dispute is primarily concerned with the existence and disclosure of government records and the extent to which federal agencies can lawfully withhold portions of those records.
Tinubu's legal representatives have opposed further disclosure of records relating to the investigation. His lawyers have argued that the release of personal information contained in government files would violate privacy rights and that the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to provide transparency concerning government activities rather than expose private information about individuals.
The president's legal team has therefore asked the court to restrict further disclosure while the FOIA proceedings continue.
The controversy is also connected to a separate 1990s civil asset-forfeiture proceeding involving $460,000 linked to bank accounts associated with Tinubu. That earlier case has repeatedly been cited in political debates about his history in the United States.
Legal commentators have emphasized that the forfeiture proceeding was civil rather than a criminal conviction. In July, U.S.-trained lawyer Aloy Ejimakor argued that the forfeiture of the money did not amount to a criminal conviction under U.S. law and said Tinubu was never arrested, tried or convicted of a drug offence in the United States.
The latest FBI declaration, however, concerns a separate question: whether Tinubu was the subject of a federal criminal investigation and whether records generated during that investigation can be obtained through FOIA.
The distinction between an investigation and a conviction is central to the continuing controversy.
Federal investigators can investigate individuals because they believe information may be relevant to a suspected criminal offence. An investigation can subsequently result in charges, remain unresolved, or end without prosecution. Consequently, the FBI's acknowledgment that Tinubu was the subject of an investigation does not itself establish that prosecutors proved a criminal case against him.
The legal battle is nevertheless significant because previous U.S. government responses had avoided confirming or denying the existence of certain records relating to Tinubu. Judge Howell's 2025 decision changed that position by finding that the agencies could no longer rely on privacy arguments to maintain a blanket refusal to acknowledge the investigation.
The FBI is still withholding some material under statutory exemptions, meaning the public has not yet received the complete investigative file.
The agency has argued that disclosure of some records could reveal confidential sources, investigative methods or information that could potentially threaten individuals' safety. It has also asked the court for permission to provide some explanations under seal rather than placing sensitive details on the public record.
The latest filing therefore does not end the legal dispute. Instead, it represents another stage in the ongoing battle over what information the U.S. government must release and what information it is legally entitled to keep confidential.
The controversy is likely to remain politically sensitive in Nigeria, particularly as opposition figures and supporters of the president debate the significance of the newly acknowledged investigation.
Supporters of Tinubu are expected to emphasize that the FBI declaration does not amount to a criminal conviction or proof that he committed drug-trafficking offences. Critics, meanwhile, are likely to argue that the acknowledgment of a criminal investigation raises important questions that should be answered through the release of additional records.
The debate is further complicated by the fact that some of the underlying records remain classified as exempt from public disclosure under U.S. law.
The current court proceedings could therefore determine how much additional information becomes available about the investigation and the government's handling of records connected to it.
For now, the FBI has formally acknowledged in court that records concerning Tinubu were associated with a criminal investigation involving drug-trafficking crimes and that a previous court determination had recognized the investigation. That acknowledgment is significant, but it does not by itself establish criminal guilt.
The continuing legal battle will now focus on the remaining records, the FBI's claimed exemptions and whether the court will require additional information to be released.
As the dispute continues in Washington, the issue is likely to remain a major political talking point in Nigeria, where questions surrounding Tinubu's past in the United States have resurfaced with renewed force.
The next stage of the proceedings could determine whether further FBI and DEA records become public and whether those records provide additional information about the investigation that began more than three decades ago.