US intelligence agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) , are under legal scrutiny after invoking the controversial Glomar response to block requests for information regarding Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s alleged ties to drug trafficking. The response allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of sensitive records, citing national security and privacy concerns.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, brought forward by US plaintiff Aaron Greenspan, seeks unredacted access to files allegedly connecting Tinubu to drug trafficking operations in Chicago during the 1990s. However, the agencies maintain that disclosing such details could jeopardise US national interests and compromise security abroad.
Allegations resurface amid legal challenges
Court records from the early 1990s allege Tinubu had ties to bank accounts reportedly used to launder proceeds from heroin trafficking in Chicago. In 1993, Tinubu agreed to forfeit $460,000 to US authorities in what was seen as a plea deal, avoiding a formal trial for drug trafficking and money laundering charges.
Recent legal documents reveal that US agencies jointly opposed FOIA requests, arguing that releasing the records could undermine operational security. The CIA’s filing even referenced concerns that Tinubu might have been an asset for the agency, a claim that has added fuel to growing public demands for transparency.
Nigerian investigative journalist David Hundeyin has been at the forefront of pushing for clarity on Tinubu’s past, accusing the US intelligence community of shielding questionable leaders for strategic gain. ‘This is not just about Nigeria,’ Hundeyin said on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). ‘It’s about the hypocrisy of supporting corrupt regimes that destabilise entire regions.’
While FOIA laws are designed to promote government accountability, the case underscores the tension between transparency and safeguarding sensitive intelligence. The DEA’s response mirrored the CIA’s position, with officials arguing that releasing Tinubu-related files could set a dangerous precedent.
In a public statement, the DEA defended its stance, asserting, ‘Citizens are not entitled to unrestricted access to intelligence records. National security must come first.’ The agency further highlighted concerns about operational secrecy and risks to ongoing investigations.
Amid growing controversy, Dada Olusegun, Tinubu’s special assistant on social media, dismissed allegations linking the president to drug trafficking or CIA involvement as ‘absurd’ and politically motivated. ‘This is a tragic attempt to smear President Tinubu’s name with baseless accusations,’ he said.
The Nigerian government has largely refrained from direct involvement in the case but faces increasing pressure at home and abroad to address the allegations. Tinubu’s political opponents have used the claims to challenge his credibility, accusing his administration of a lack of accountability.
The case comes at a time when African nations are increasingly scrutinising their leaders’ ties to foreign powers and questionable past dealings. Critics argue that the US intelligence community’s historical support for controversial figures undermines democratic stability in Africa.
Hundeyin criticised what he called the ‘US intelligence community’s complicity in perpetuating poor governance’ in Africa. He warned that protecting leaders like Tinubu could exacerbate regional instability and foster anti-Western sentiment.
As the legal battle over Tinubu’s files unfolds, the case highlights the ongoing global debate over transparency, privacy, and national security. Whether the records will eventually be released remains uncertain, but the controversy has already sparked renewed scrutiny of Tinubu’s past and his standing as Nigeria’s leader.
The implications of this case extend beyond Nigeria, raising questions about how global powers navigate their relationships with leaders accused of misconduct while maintaining their strategic interests.
