The Presidency has disputed claims surrounding newly released United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records which indicate that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation linked to drug-trafficking activities in the early 1990s.

The FBI’s position was contained in a sworn declaration filed 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 agency stated that the records in question “were compiled in furtherance of the FBI’s investigation of multiple individuals for drug trafficking crimes.”

The FBI further noted that the court had previously determined that “an official acknowledgement had been made of an investigation of Bola Tinubu.”

The latest filing 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 use so-called “Glomar” responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the Nigerian president.

Howell ruled that the agencies had not established sufficient privacy grounds to conceal the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of an investigation and ordered them to process non-exempt records requested under FOIA.

The court’s ruling, however, did not establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence, nor did it find that he was convicted of any crime.

The records were sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, whose FOIA requests included the “entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu” as well as FBI Form 302 interview records involving him under FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU between 1992 and 1993.

The requests were part of a broader effort to obtain records relating to a Chicago heroin-trafficking operation during the period.

The FBI has continued to withhold portions of the records, citing FOIA exemptions covering personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could potentially endanger individuals.

The controversy intensified after Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying and advisory firm retained by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 presidential election, publicised portions of the FBI declaration.

The firm said it was reviewing a large volume of records obtained from the FBI and redacting portions where necessary.

It also said the document was released to challenge claims that Tinubu had never been criminally investigated.

“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 in a post on X.

Reacting, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, dismissed the development as a politically motivated campaign designed to damage Tinubu ahead of the 2027 election.

Dare described the reports as “a clinical demonstration of desperation,” arguing that materials being circulated from Washington should not be construed as an 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,” Dare said.

He challenged those circulating allegations to produce evidence of the purported classified intelligence reports being referenced.

“We demand that they produce the so-called ‘highly classified intelligence report,’ identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations,” he said.

Dare also alleged that US Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings showed that Atiku contracted Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. on a $1.2 million, 12-month retainer.

According to the presidential aide, the arrangement was intended to counter Nigerian government narratives and exploit historical US judicial records for political purposes ahead of the 2027 elections.

He further questioned the role of the firm’s principal, Dr Karl-Marx Edward Okeke-Von Batten, in the FOIA proceedings, insisting that the firm was not responsible for the underlying court case.

Dare said the FOIA litigation had been ongoing since 2023 and argued that the FBI’s continuing withholding of some records was primarily connected to protecting investigative techniques and confidential sources.

He also rejected suggestions that Tinubu’s current foreign trip was connected to the US proceedings, describing the President’s travel as a previously scheduled annual leave.

“There is absolutely no connection between the President’s European trip and the ongoing U.S. FOIA proceedings,” Dare said.

The presidential aide also referred to comments by Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Afolabi, SAN, who recently discussed the FOIA proceedings on Channels Television.

According to Dare, Afolabi explained that the withholding of portions of the records was based on US legal provisions protecting confidential investigative processes.

Dare further cited Afolabi’s argument that if Tinubu had been criminally liable under US law during the period under investigation, American authorities would have indicted and prosecuted him at the time.

“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.

The Presidency’s response has therefore drawn a distinction between the existence of an FBI investigation and proof of criminal culpability, while the opposition-linked lobbying firm has presented the FBI declaration as evidence that Tinubu was officially investigated for drug-trafficking-related crimes.

Dare accused the opposition of relying on decades-old US records rather than presenting Nigerians with policy alternatives ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

He argued that Tinubu’s electoral fate should ultimately be determined by his performance in office, policy proposals and the judgment of Nigerian voters.

“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,” Dare said.