President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was investigated by United States authorities over drug-trafficking allegations in the early 1990s, according to a fresh court filing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The agency’s position was contained in a sworn declaration submitted on August 28, 2026, to the US District Court for the District of Columbia as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over records relating to the Nigerian President.
The filing provides an official acknowledgement of the existence of an investigation involving Tinubu, although it does not establish that he committed a drug-related offence or was convicted by a US court.
According to the FBI, the documents being sought were generated during investigations involving several people suspected of drug-trafficking crimes.
“The responsive records herein were compiled in furtherance of the FBI’s investigation of multiple individuals for drug trafficking crimes,” the agency stated.
The bureau also referred to an earlier decision of the court, noting that “the court has already determined that an official acknowledgement had been made of an investigation of Bola Tinubu.”
The issue has been before the US court for several years following requests by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for access to FBI records concerning Tinubu.
Among the documents requested are the complete FBI file relating to Tinubu and interview records known as FBI 302s connected to Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU, covering investigations conducted in 1992 and 1993.
The records are understood to be connected to investigations into a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking network that operated during that period.
A major turning point came in April 2025 when US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration could not continue using “Glomar” responses to avoid confirming or denying whether records concerning Tinubu existed.
The judge found that the agencies had not shown sufficient privacy grounds for concealing the fact that Tinubu had been investigated. She consequently directed the agencies to process the records requested under FOIA, while allowing legally protected information to remain withheld.
The FBI, however, has maintained that significant portions of the material cannot be released. It has relied on exemptions covering individual privacy, confidential sources, investigative procedures and information that could put people at risk.
The latest court filing has now become a major point of political argument in Nigeria, particularly as political parties and presidential hopefuls prepare for the 2027 election.
Von Batten-Montague-YorkVon Batten-Montague-York, a US-based policy and lobbying firm working with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, brought renewed attention to the filing by publishing portions of the document on social media.
The firm said the FBI’s sworn statement should settle arguments over whether Tinubu had ever 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.
It added, “We are posting this document to counter the claim made yesterday that President Tinubu was never criminally investigated and is simply following the law to protect his privacy.”
“That claim is false, as shown by the FBI’s sworn declaration below,” it said.
The lobbying firm has gone further, claiming that the FBI and DEA are separately examining files associated with the old allegations. It said the review involves material relating to allegations of heroin trafficking, money laundering and possible breaches of US tax laws.
The firm also claimed that there are disagreements over whether Tinubu should have faced charges in 1993.
“There are differing views within the review as to whether President #Tinubu should have faced criminal charges in 1993, and the underlying case is now receiving renewed scrutiny,” it claimed.
According to the firm, the outstanding question is whether the current examination will remain an assessment of historical records or lead to a new criminal investigation.
“The critical question is whether that review will remain historical in nature or develop into a new criminal inquiry,” it said.
Those claims about a possible new criminal inquiry, however, are separate from what the FBI has formally confirmed in its sworn declaration. The information available does not independently establish that US authorities have opened a fresh criminal investigation against Tinubu.
Meanwhile, the Presidency has reacted to the renewed controversy, describing the development as part of an opposition strategy ahead of the 2027 election.
Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, said the activities surrounding the US records were being presented in a misleading manner.
“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 argued that statements issued by the lobbying company should not be confused with official positions 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 demanded evidence for claims about alleged classified intelligence concerning Tinubu.
“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 spokesman also linked the lobbying firm’s activities to Atiku, alleging that publicly available FARA documents showed the former vice-president had entered into a $1.2 million, 12-month agreement with Von Batten-Montague-York.
Dare accused the firm of attempting to use historical American records to influence political narratives in Nigeria.
He also questioned claims made by the firm’s principal, Dr Karl-Marx Edward Okeke-Von Batten, about the US 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.
Dare maintained that the lobbying firm was not responsible for the underlying court case, which he said had been active since 2023.
“He has absolute zero to do with what is playing out in the U.S. court system,” Dare said.
“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 also rejected suggestions that Tinubu’s current trip outside Nigeria had anything to do with the American legal proceedings.
“This orchestrated distraction attempts to tie the President’s movements to foreign legal proceedings, but the facts are clear: President Tinubu is on a previously scheduled annual leave, and there is absolutely no connection between the President’s European trip and the ongoing U.S. FOIA proceedings,” Dare said.
The Presidency has also relied on an explanation attributed to Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Afolabi, SAN, who recently discussed the matter on Channels Television.
Dare said Afolabi explained that the US authorities were withholding some of the records because American law protects sensitive investigative information.
He also quoted the lawyer as arguing that the absence of an indictment or prosecution was important in assessing the historical allegations.
“He emphasized 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.
Tinubu’s lawyers have meanwhile challenged further disclosure of the records, citing his privacy rights and arguing that personal information contained in government archives should not be released simply because it is being sought under FOIA.
