Tinubu Would Have Been Arrested If US Had Drug Trafficking Evidence, Lawyer Says

President Bola Tinubu’s legal representative in the United States, Wole Afolabi, has explained why the Nigerian leader has not been arrested or prosecuted over allegations linking him to drug trafficking in the US.

Speaking during an interview with Channels Television, Afolabi said US authorities would have taken criminal action against Tinubu if they had sufficient evidence connecting him to drug trafficking.

The lawyer made the comments while discussing the ongoing legal dispute over records held by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking documents relating to Tinubu and historical investigations involving him.

Afolabi maintained that the fact that some information remains redacted does not mean that the withheld material contains evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

According to the lawyer, US authorities have already released thousands of pages of documents to Greenspan, while withholding certain portions under exemptions provided by American law.

“This matter has been going on for quite some time, as you rightly said, and the DEA and other government agencies have produced documents and made them available to Mr Greenspan.”

He said Greenspan was now seeking access to unredacted versions of the documents, but argued that the government agencies were entitled to withhold information where the law permits.

“Now Mr Greenspan is asking that the documents be unredacted before they are handed over to him. The way the system works is this: it’s not what you want, it’s what the law stipulates.”

Afolabi further argued that Tinubu’s legal team was acting within its rights by challenging the release of information that could be protected under US law.

“Precisely what we are doing is going under the coverage of the law. It’s what the law gives us the right to do.”

The lawyer said failing to rely on the available legal protections would amount to professional malpractice.

“It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we didn’t take advantage of what the law offers.”

Afolabi also directly addressed the broader allegations surrounding Tinubu’s past dealings with US authorities, arguing that the absence of an arrest or prosecution was significant.

He said that if American authorities had evidence sufficient to establish that Tinubu was involved in drug trafficking, the US justice system would have had grounds to indict, arrest and prosecute him.

The current FOIA dispute, however, concerns access to government records and the extent to which information contained in those records can legally be disclosed. It does not itself amount to a criminal prosecution or establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.

The controversy dates back to the early 1990s and includes a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu. The funds were forfeited to the US government, while Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing.

Greenspan has sought access to additional records held by US agencies, including FBI investigative files and interview records.

The FBI and other agencies have argued that some information should remain withheld or redacted because of privacy concerns, law-enforcement protections and the potential risks to people connected with investigations.

Tinubu’s legal team has separately challenged the release of the remaining redacted material, arguing that the President retains privacy rights under US law.

The dispute remains before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where the court will ultimately determine what portions of the requested records can be released.