Part of the documents submitted by Greenspan to court to back his FOIA case was a verified complaint and accompanying affidavit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois by the DOJ on 26 July 1993.
The documents sought the civil forfeiture of Tinubu’s funds held by First Heritage Bank allegedly connected to the drug trafficking investigation.
The affidavit by Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Special Agent Kevin Moss, who was involved in the investigation, detailed the drug trafficking activities of Agbele which provided the ground for seeking the forfeiture of Tinubu’s funds.
It also shared insights into how Agbele was arrested while selling white heroin to a person not known to him to be an undercover agent.
It stated that upon arrival in the United States, “Agbele identified Akande (who has also been linked to Mr Tinubu) as his uncle and stated that Akande provided him (Agbele) an apartment in Hammond, Indiana,” citing “investigating agents of DEA” as the source of this information.
Furthermore, he said according to DEA investigators, Agbele sold white heroin to another individual on numerous occasions.
With the assistance of “Source A”, DEA called Agbele to purchase a small amount of white heroin,” which resulted in a transaction where “Agbele sold one ounce of white heroin to a law enforcement officer working in an undercover capacity.”
Subsequent to this sale, “Agbele was arrested and agreed to cooperate” with the investigation.
The affidavit also states that further investigation by DEA disclosed a lease application completed by Agbele.
Moss’s affidavit confirmed that both the FBI and DEA investigated Tinubu in the wider probe into the drug trafficking activities of Agbele and other members of his ring.
It confirmed that “there is probable cause to believe that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were involved in financial transactions” in violation of US laws “and represent proceeds of drug trafficking.”
It stated that seeking to target Tinubu’s funds arose from “investigation of money laundering of the proceeds of a heroin distribution organisation in the Chicago area.” The clues relied on were said to include “information provided by Special Agents of the IRS, DEA, (and) FBI.”
Although Tinubu forfeited the suspect funds, he has consistently denied wrongdoings. He has also never been criminally indicted or charged in the case.
Nothing new to be revealed – Onanuga
Reacting, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, said the information being sought did not indict Tinubu.
He also hinted that there is nothing new, in the report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report, saying the report has been in the public space for more than 30 years.
According to Onanuga, “Journalists have sought the Presidency’s reaction to the ruling last Tuesday by a Washington DC judge ordering the US FBI and DEA to release reports connected with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“There is nothing new to be revealed. The report by Agent Moss of the FBI and the DEA report have been in the public space for more than 30 years. The reports did not indict the Nigerian leader. The lawyers are examining the ruling.”
Opposition behind it – Bwala
The Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communications, Daniel Bwala, yesterday alleged that the opposition in Nigeria were behind the United States District Court order.
Writing on his X handle, Bwala said: “There is nothing these opposition under the auspices of coalition for a wild goose chase cannot try to do to keep relevance.
Bwala wrote, “Mischievous and politically mechanized nonsense under the guise of US Court Orders FBI and DEA to act. They claim the order was given on Tuesday, but it never saw the light of the media until Sunday.
“There is nothing these opposition under the auspices of coalition for a wild goose chase cannot try to do to keep relevance.
“They went to meet @MBuhari and it was reported that he insisted the meeting be held in or on camera so that Elrufai would not go and say Buhari is joining SDP and PDP.
“Hard as they try, they are still struggling to convince Nigerians that they have any plan at all, needless alternative plan.”
Order amenable to appeal – Lawyers
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dayo Akinlaja, in an interview with Daily Trust last night, said since the case had been on for some time in the US, it is difficult to say why the order was made now or when it will be complied with, as the matter was from a different jurisdiction.
“The order does not signal the end of the matter as it is still amenable to appeal since it is said to be from a district court. I don’t think it is something to be sensationalised,” he said.
Similarly, Jibrin S. Jibrin, Esq, speaking on the possibility for compliance with the order, told Daily Trust that depending on the particular legal system in issue in the context of the applicable procedures, there may not be further delays or time limit within which the documents in reference as it relates to President Tinubu could be released by the relevant US authorities.
He stated, “For example, I believe the authorities concerned would comply promptly with the ruling if there is no appeal against the decision ordering the release and if the applicant has complied with the requirements guiding the matter one of which is payment of the prescribed fees.
“In essence, my humble point is that the US authorities concerned are obligated to release the documents in issue immediately unless there is any reason or ground in law halting such like an appeal, an application for review or stay of execution and so on.
“On the second issue relating to the timing of the matter before the US Court or why the issue is coming up again at this time, I think this is immaterial as what is important is whether the person making the application is entitled under the law to make same and not the timing nor his her reason or motive for bringing up the matter (i.e. the application).
“This is so because even under the Freedom of Information Act applicable in Nigeria, what matters is that an application for the requested information or documents is made and the agency, authority or office concerned is obliged to release same as it cannot question the motive, reason or timing of making the application.
“So relating it the US matter on President Tinubu, the timing or motive behind the matter is of no essence. What matters is the substance of the application in the context of the ruling of the court”.(Daily trust)
