Washington, D.C., November 13, 2024 — The United States law enforcement agencies have taken a firm stance, asserting that Nigerians do not have the right to unrestricted access to confidential information concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. This revelation was part of a recent court filing submitted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case, which gained renewed attention this week, was highlighted by investigative journalist David Hundeyin, who shared an update on social media. According to Hundeyin, the filing represents the agencies’ defense against a motion for summary judgment related to requests for unredacted records concerning past investigations into President Tinubu.
Hundeyin stated, *“Yesterday (Monday) in federal court, the CIA, FBI, and DEA filed a memorandum opposing our motion for summary judgment in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure case about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s drug trafficking investigation records, where we are seeking to have the redactions removed from the (partially released) files.”*
In a significant portion of the court filing, the CIA appeared to confirm that President Tinubu is regarded as an active “CIA asset.” The agency’s statement emphasized the potential national security risks tied to disclosing the identity of confidential sources. An excerpt from the document reads:
*”Human sources can be expected to furnish information to the CIA only when they are confident the CIA can and will do everything in its power to prevent the public disclosure of their cooperation. In the case of a person who has been cooperating with the CIA, official confirmation of that cooperation could cause the targets to take retaliatory action against that person or against their family or friends.”*
The memorandum also stressed that confirming any details about sources tied to President Tinubu could expose those involved to significant risks and compromise U.S. intelligence operations. According to the filing, *“Confirming or denying the existence of records on a particular foreign national, like Tinubu, could reasonably be expected to cause damage to U.S. national security.”*
The DEA, in its portion of the filing, addressed the controversy surrounding the release of documents related to a historic investigation into alleged drug trafficking connections involving Tinubu. The agency argued against full transparency, stating:
*”We oppose full, unredacted disclosure of the DEA’s Bola Tinubu heroin trafficking investigation records because we believe that while Nigerians have a right to be informed about what their government is up to, they do not have a right to know what their president is up to.”*
This assertion has sparked significant outrage, with critics accusing the U.S. government of enabling secrecy around foreign leaders who have relationships with its intelligence agencies. Hundeyin, who has been vocal on this issue, condemned the stance, stating, *“At this point, there is nothing more to be said about the direct role that the U.S. government plays in ensuring that Africa is constantly destabilized and afflicted with terrible leaders who create poverty and devastation.”*
The case traces back to last year when a U.S. court declined an emergency application that sought to expedite the release of confidential files related to President Tinubu. The latest developments in the legal battle have intensified debates over the right to information, transparency, and the implications of foreign influence on African political leadership.
As the legal proceedings continue, the matter has raised questions about the extent of U.S. involvement in Nigerian affairs and the ethical implications of shielding sensitive information under the guise of national security.
