FBI RECORDS: Only Release of Tinubu’s US Files Can End Public Distrust, Onochie Says
MAIN POINTS:
*Dispute over alleged $460,000 forfeiture
*Political implications
*Judge oversees continuing FOIA litigation
*Onochie: Disclosure could settle questions
By KEMI KASUMU
“If everyone thinks you are bald because you always wear a hat, just remove the hat and let everyone see if you have hair or not. Simple,” said Lauretta Onochie.
Former presidential aide and prominent member of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), Lauretta Onochie, has said the controversy surrounding United States law-enforcement records linked to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu can only be resolved if the records are allowed to go through the judicial process for possible public disclosure.
Onochie made the comment on Saturday, August 29, 2026, in an exclusive reaction to a report by The DEFENDER titled, “Tinubu Asks US Court to Block Release of His FBI Records in Long-Running FOIA Case.”
Reacting to the development, Onochie used an analogy to argue that allowing the records to become public would be the simplest way to address continuing questions surrounding them.
“If everyone thinks you are bald because you always wear a hat, just remove the hat and let everyone see if you have hair or not. Simple,” she said.
The comment followed reports that Tinubu had asked a United States federal court to prevent the public release of records held by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
The latest development was disclosed on Saturday by Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., in an update posted on X. Local media reports also said the development was confirmed by Tinubu’s legal representatives.
The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who instituted a FOIA action against several US government agencies seeking documents relating to historical investigations involving Tinubu.
Among the materials sought are records from the FBI’s file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to the period between 1992 and 1993.
The litigation also relates to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 associated with Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing in connection with the matter.
According to a 16-page filing attributed to Tinubu’s legal team, the president argued that releasing the requested investigative records could violate his privacy rights.
The filing reportedly relied on previous US judicial decisions concerning privacy interests in law-enforcement records, arguing that the existence of some publicly available information does not automatically remove an individual’s legal interest in keeping the contents of investigative files private.
The legal team also argued that previous disclosures made in connection with the forfeiture proceedings did not amount to a waiver of privacy protections over investigative materials that have not been made public.
The filing further maintained that the FOIA request was aimed at obtaining information that is not currently contained in the public record.
According to Von Batten-Montague-York, Tinubu’s latest court position contends that the attempt to obtain the records is connected to efforts to influence political developments in Nigeria ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The firm quoted the legal argument as stating that the records were being sought “to influence politics in a foreign nation.”
The development has consequently taken on added political significance in Nigeria, particularly as opposition figures, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, prepare for the 2027 presidential contest.
Von Batten-Montague-York has also been reported to have been retained by Atiku, a factor that has featured prominently in political reactions to the case.
However, the political context does not determine the legal question before the US court, which is whether the records sought under FOIA are subject to disclosure or fall within exemptions that permit government agencies to withhold them.
The case is being handled by US District Judge Beryl Howell at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Earlier in August, the FBI sought permission to present part of its justification for withholding certain records privately through an ex parte, in-camera submission. Such a procedure allows sensitive material to be presented directly to the judge without being publicly disclosed.
The court subsequently permitted the FBI to submit sensitive information privately and directed the relevant parties to make their final submissions.
The dispute centres on historical US law-enforcement records concerning investigations reportedly linked to allegations of narcotics trafficking.
Importantly, the existence of the FOIA litigation does not establish that Tinubu committed heroin trafficking or any other criminal offence. Tinubu has not been criminally convicted of heroin trafficking in the United States.
The case is instead focused on whether records held by US government agencies should be released under the Freedom of Information Act or protected under applicable exemptions.
Onochie’s intervention adds another political dimension to the long-running controversy. Her position is that continued efforts to prevent the release of the records will not resolve public suspicion surrounding the matter.
Her analogy suggested that, rather than allowing speculation to continue, disclosure of whatever the court determines can legally be made public could provide the basis for the public to assess the matter for itself.
The US court is yet to make a final determination on the latest request. Until the court rules on the competing arguments, claims concerning the contents of the undisclosed records remain allegations or matters of dispute and should not be treated as established criminal findings.
The eventual ruling could nevertheless attract considerable attention in Nigeria, where the controversy is increasingly becoming part of the political debate ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
