TD Records concerning an alleged investigation into Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s possible links to a U.S. heroin-trafficking network remain undisclosed more than a year after a federal judge ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to search for and process responsive records.
The development has renewed questions about the handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Tinubu, particularly as the Nigerian president seeks closer engagement with U.S. President Donald Trump.
According to a report published by The Daily Caller on August 4, 2026, a federal court issued an opinion in April 2025 directing the FBI and DEA to search for and process records responsive to FOIA requests concerning an investigation involving Tinubu.
The requests had initially been rejected by federal authorities during the Biden administration in 2023.
However, more than a year after the court’s ruling, the requested Tinubu-related records have reportedly still not been produced.
FOIA Requester Accuses Agencies of Delaying Release
Aaron Greenspan, who filed the FOIA requests, has described the prolonged process as a “farce.”
In a May filing, Greenspan reportedly complained that, after approximately four years, he had still not received a single page produced by the FBI or DEA containing the word “Tinubu.”
Greenspan further accused the agencies of prolonging the litigation while protecting the political interests of a foreign politician.
The allegation, however, remains Greenspan’s characterization of the government’s handling of the records that the agencies are deliberately protecting Tinubu.
Under the U.S. FOIA framework, federal agencies can withhold certain categories of law-enforcement records where statutory exemptions apply.
These include circumstances involving privacy, confidential sources or potential interference with enforcement proceedings.
What the 1993 Records Allegedly Show
The controversy traces back to civil forfeiture proceedings dating to 1993.
Records reportedly uncovered by Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin before Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election included an affidavit by Kevin Moss, then an Internal Revenue Service special agent.
According to the affidavit cited in the reports, investigators examined financial transactions allegedly involving Tinubu and people associated with a Chicago-area organization suspected of money laundering and heroin distribution.
The affidavit reportedly alleged that Tinubu opened a bank account using an address associated with the organization and that hundreds of thousands of dollars moved through accounts connected to the network.
U.S. authorities subsequently seized almost $2 million.
Moss reportedly stated that there was “probable cause” to believe that money transferred through accounts in Tinubu’s name constituted property traceable to, or represented proceeds of, drug trafficking.
Tinubu was not criminally charged in connection with the matter, and the civil forfeiture proceedings did not result in a criminal conviction against him.
That distinction is critical because the existence of an investigative allegation, affidavit or civil forfeiture proceeding does not by itself establish criminal culpability.
Greenspan and Hundeyin Pursue Additional Records
Following Tinubu’s election as president in 2023, Greenspan and Hundeyin sought additional records from U.S. federal agencies through FOIA requests.
They reportedly requested documents concerning investigations involving Tinubu, including information relating to possible charging decisions.
After federal agencies denied or withheld records, the requesters went to court seeking disclosure.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell reportedly ruled in favor of several agencies, including the CIA.
The judge, however, ordered the FBI and DEA to search for and process responsive records that were not exempt from disclosure.
The dispute subsequently continued through additional court filings and requests for extensions.
According to court filings monitored by Plainsight, a court-monitoring project developed by Greenspan, lawyers representing Tinubu also intervened in the litigation and opposed disclosure on privacy grounds.
Tinubu-Trump Engagement Adds Political Sensitivity
The dispute has taken on additional significance amid efforts to strengthen relations between Tinubu and Trump.
Nigerian diplomatic officials have reportedly indicated that a meeting between the two presidents could take place.
Meanwhile, another Nigerian official reportedly said arrangements had been made for Tinubu to sit near Trump during the United Nations General Assembly.
A potential Tinubu-Trump meeting would come against the backdrop of Trump’s strong public emphasis on combating international drug trafficking.
It could also have wider implications for U.S.-Nigeria relations, including questions surrounding American assistance and Washington’s approach to Nigeria’s security crisis.
The U.S. House of Representatives reportedly advanced legislation in July that would suspend foreign assistance to Nigeria over concerns surrounding the country’s handling of violence and religious persecution.
Hundeyin: Disclosure Could Continue Indefinitely
Hundeyin, who has investigated Tinubu’s historical financial records, reportedly agreed with Greenspan’s assessment of the prolonged FOIA process.
He suggested that the litigation could theoretically continue indefinitely.
Hundeyin also offered a highly critical interpretation of the situation.
He argued that elements within the U.S. government could be withholding information for strategic reasons connected to America’s relationship with Nigeria.
Those assertions remain allegations and political interpretations rather than established findings by a court.
Concerns Over Nigeria’s Security Crisis
Mark Lipdo, founder of the Stefano Foundation, which monitors terrorism and religious persecution in Nigeria, also expressed concern about the implications of closer U.S.-Nigeria political engagement.
Lipdo reportedly told The Daily Caller that the situation could result in further harm to Christians in Nigeria if individuals whom he considers sympathetic to terrorist interests gain greater access to the U.S. president.
His comments reflect one side of the contentious debate surrounding Nigeria’s security crisis and the competing political narratives about the government’s response to attacks against religious communities.
FBI and DEA Yet to Produce the Records
The central issue remains whether the FBI and DEA will ultimately release the non-exempt records covered by the court’s April 2025 order.
The fact that records have not yet been produced does not establish that the allegations against Tinubu are true, nor does it establish that the agencies are intentionally concealing evidence of criminal conduct.
Rather, the documented dispute concerns the scope, processing and disclosure of government records requested under FOIA and the continuing litigation over what information can legally be withheld.
The next joint status report in the case is reportedly scheduled for mid-September 2026.
The Daily Caller reported that the FBI, DEA and Nigerian Embassy in Washington did not respond to its requests for comment.
Bottom line
The unresolved FOIA case has placed renewed attention on long-standing allegations surrounding Tinubu’s name in 1990s U.S. civil forfeiture records.
Those records contain serious allegations concerning financial transactions and suspected drug-trafficking proceeds.
Meanwhile, Tinubu was never criminally charged in that case and no criminal conviction resulted from the forfeiture proceedings.
The outstanding question is therefore not whether the allegations have been proven, but:
- what additional records exist,
- what the FBI and DEA have found, and,
- why records covered by the court’s order have not yet been produced.
Finally, a source from the United States told This Dawn News on Tuesday that Tinubu’s lobbyists have gained unannounced access to President Trump which explains the sudden silence from the White House over Tinubu-related matters in particular and Nigerian affairs in general.
