The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation connected to drug-trafficking activities in the early 1990s, while stressing that the disclosure does not establish that he committed any offence.
The confirmation was contained in a sworn declaration filed by the FBI on August 28, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking records relating to Tinubu.
In the declaration, the FBI said the records sought were “compiled in furtherance of the FBI’s investigation of multiple individuals for drug-trafficking crimes.”
The agency also acknowledged that the court had previously determined that there had been an official acknowledgement of an investigation involving Tinubu.
The latest disclosure followed an April 2025 ruling by US District Judge Beryl Howell, who held that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could no longer rely on so-called “Glomar” responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning the President.
Howell ruled that the agencies had failed to establish sufficient privacy grounds to conceal the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation and ordered them to process records that were not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
The ruling, however, did not establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence or that he was convicted of any crime.
How the FOIA Case Began
The proceedings stemmed from Freedom of Information Act requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who sought, among other documents, the “entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu” and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to Tinubu in FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU between 1992 and 1993.
The requests are connected to a broader effort to obtain records relating to a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking operation investigated by US authorities during the early 1990s.
While acknowledging the existence of relevant investigative records, the FBI has continued to withhold portions of the material, citing exemptions under US freedom-of-information law covering personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could endanger individuals.
The agency said it could not publicly disclose the full basis for some of the exemptions.
Atiku-Linked Firm Publicises Disclosure
The latest development was publicised by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm hired by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
In a statement posted on its X account, the firm said it was reviewing a large volume of records obtained from the FBI and redacting portions where necessary.
It argued that the FBI declaration contradicted claims that Tinubu had never been the subject of a criminal investigation.
“The FBI states under oath that the court has already determined that a criminal investigation of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu was officially acknowledged,” the firm said.
The disclosure has since triggered a strong response from the Presidency, which dismissed the development as politically motivated.
Presidency Hits Back
Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, accused Atiku of using the Washington-based lobbying firm to generate controversy ahead of the 2027 election.
Dare described the development as “a clinical demonstration of desperation”, arguing that the release of the court document did not amount to an intelligence breakthrough.
“The coordinated media blitz orchestrated around a Washington, D.C. advisory firm is not an intelligence breakthrough; it is a clinical demonstration of desperation,” Dare said.
He also cautioned against presenting statements issued by the lobbying firm as the official position of the US government.
“The incendiary press releases being carefully churned out from Washington are public relations propaganda sheets passed off as the view of the U.S. Government. They are not,” he said.
Dare challenged those making broader allegations against Tinubu to produce evidence supporting claims concerning classified intelligence.
“Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence,” he said.
“We demand that they produce the so-called ‘highly classified intelligence report,’ identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations.”
The presidential aide further alleged that US Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act filings showed that Atiku contracted Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. on a $1.2 million, 12-month retainer.
According to Dare, the engagement was intended to “counterbalance” the Nigerian government’s narratives and deploy historical US judicial records as political leverage ahead of the 2027 elections.
He also questioned the role of the firm’s principal, Dr Karl-Marx Edward Okeke-Von Batten, in the FOIA litigation, insisting that the lobbying firm was not responsible for the court proceedings.
“Okeke-Von Batten must have conned a desperate Alhaji Abubakar Atiku into believing that he has access to everyone in the Trump administration, including President Trump himself,” Dare alleged.
“He has absolute zero to do with what is playing out in the U.S. court system. The case has been active since 2023, and the FBI’s main concern is simply the protection of the techniques by which it gathers information and the safety of its sources,” he added.
Presidency Rejects Link to Tinubu’s Travels
Dare also rejected suggestions that Tinubu’s foreign travel was connected to the FOIA proceedings, saying the President was on a previously scheduled annual leave.
He cited comments by Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Afolabi, SAN, who recently discussed the FOIA proceedings on Channels Television, saying the legal objections to further disclosure were based on US laws protecting confidential investigative information.
According to Dare, Afolabi had also argued that if Tinubu had been criminally liable under US law, American authorities would have indicted and prosecuted him at the time.
“He emphasised the core reality: if the president had been criminally liable under U.S. law during past investigations, American authorities would have indicted and prosecuted him at the time,” Dare said.
The Presidency accused the opposition of relying on decades-old US records instead of presenting Nigerians with concrete policy alternatives ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Dare said the election should ultimately be determined by the government’s performance, policy choices and competing programmes rather than controversies surrounding historical US records.
“True democratic validation is earned through the ballot box and tangible service delivery to the citizens at home, not through manufactured headlines bought and paid for in foreign currency,” he said.
Legal Team Opposes Further Disclosure
Meanwhile, Tinubu’s legal team has opposed further disclosure of the records, arguing that releasing personal information contained in government archives would infringe on the President’s privacy rights.
The FBI’s latest filing therefore confirms that Tinubu was investigated in connection with a drug-trafficking probe in the 1990s.
However, the publicly disclosed court material does not, by itself, establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence or was convicted of one.
