Tinubu Within His Rights To Oppose FBI, DEA Records – Obono-Obla

Former presidential aide and lawyer, Okoi Obono-Obla, has said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is within his legal rights to oppose the release of additional Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records concerning investigations dating back to the early 1990s.

Obono-Obla made the position known in an interview with BusinessDay, arguing that the ongoing United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation should not be turned into a political weapon in Nigeria. 

The controversy stems from a FOIA lawsuit filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking records from several US government agencies relating to historical investigations involving Tinubu.

Greenspan has requested, among other documents, FBI records concerning Tinubu, interview reports from 1992–1993 and DEA records linked to investigations in Chicago during the period. Tinubu has intervened in the case and asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to maintain existing redactions and withholdings on grounds including privacy protections. 

Obono-Obla argued that the president’s position is supported by US FOIA provisions protecting personal privacy and sensitive law-enforcement information.

He pointed specifically to FOIA Exemption 7(C), which permits authorities to withhold law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

According to him, the fact that information relating to the historical investigation has already entered the public domain does not automatically mean that every underlying investigative document, interview memorandum or FBI record must be released.

‘It Was A Civil Forfeiture, Not Criminal Conviction’

A major part of Obono-Obla’s argument concerns the 1993 US case involving approximately $460,000 in funds associated with accounts linked to Tinubu.

He maintained that the proceeding was a civil forfeiture case, not a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction.

The distinction was also considered during the 2023 Nigerian presidential election litigation, when the issue was raised in challenges to Tinubu’s eligibility. The Presidential Election Petition Court rejected the argument that the forfeiture amounted to a criminal conviction. 

Obono-Obla therefore argued that the current FOIA litigation should not be presented as though the United States had reopened a criminal case against the Nigerian president.

The current case, he stressed, concerns access to historical government records rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. 

US Court Had Earlier Rejected FBI, DEA ‘Glomar’ Response

The FBI and DEA had previously attempted to use what is known as a Glomar response, meaning they would neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records.

However, in April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell rejected that position after finding that the agencies had already officially acknowledged investigations involving Tinubu. The court ordered the agencies to process responsive records and release non-exempt, reasonably segregable portions. 

The ruling did not, however, order the unrestricted publication of every document. The agencies can still redact or withhold material covered by applicable FOIA exemptions, including protections relating to privacy, confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques. 

Obono-Obla said this distinction was important, arguing that the court’s order should not be interpreted as a declaration that all FBI and DEA files relating to Tinubu must automatically become public.

He described the continuing political attention surrounding the matter as an attempt to revive an issue that has already featured prominently in Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election litigation.

According to him, the FOIA process should remain a question of American freedom-of-information law rather than become a mechanism for re-litigating Tinubu’s political eligibility.

He consequently described Tinubu’s decision to challenge further disclosure as “legally sound and in order.” 

The dispute nevertheless remains unresolved, with Greenspan continuing to seek broader disclosure while Tinubu’s legal team is asking the court to protect information they argue is covered by privacy and other statutory exemptions.

Ultimately, the US court will determine which records can lawfully be released and which portions may remain withheld or redacted.