President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s United States-based lawyer, Wole Afolabi, SAN, has questioned why American authorities have not arrested or prosecuted his client if there is credible evidence linking him to drug trafficking.
Afolabi made the remarks while defending Tinubu’s decision to challenge the release of records held by the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The case has renewed controversy over allegations concerning Tinubu’s activities in the United States in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The lawyer argued that the United States takes drug-related offences seriously and would not ordinarily hesitate to take criminal action where sufficient evidence exists.
He questioned why Tinubu has continued to travel to and from the United States without being arrested or detained over the allegations.
Afolabi cited previous cases involving foreign political figures who were arrested or prosecuted by US authorities over alleged drug-related offences, arguing that Tinubu’s continued freedom was significant in assessing the claims against him.
He also maintained that Tinubu’s current legal action should not be interpreted as an attempt to prevent the US government from exposing criminal evidence against him.
According to him, the President’s legal team is simply exercising rights available under American law to challenge the disclosure of information contained in law-enforcement records.
Afolabi explained that the records requested by Greenspan include documents from investigations conducted by US authorities decades ago, some of which have already been released with portions redacted.
The lawyer said seeking legal protection over the remaining information did not amount to an admission of wrongdoing.
The controversy stems partly from a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Illinois involving approximately $460,000 held in an account linked to Tinubu. US authorities alleged that the funds were connected to narcotics trafficking or prohibited financial transactions. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
The distinction between a civil forfeiture proceeding and a criminal conviction has remained central to the political debate in Nigeria. During the 2023 presidential election litigation, the Presidential Election Petition Court held that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.
Meanwhile, the renewed legal battle over the FBI and DEA records has intensified public interest in what the documents contain.
Tinubu’s lawyers have argued that US privacy and Freedom of Information laws protect some of the information being sought, while critics maintain that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in knowing the contents of records concerning their President.
For now, the dispute remains before the US courts, with the question of whether additional records should be made public still unresolved.
Leave a Reply