A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has sharply criticized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for repeatedly delaying the release of documents concerning Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, a case stemming from a 2022 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The legal battle, initiated by transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan and supported by investigative journalist David Hundeyin, has now stretched over three years without significant progress, prompting rebukes from Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Howell issued her latest opinion on February 3, expressing frustration with the agencies’ repeated requests for extensions and their failure to meet agreed deadlines. The documents at issue relate to a narcotics-trafficking episode in the early 1990s, in which Mr. Tinubu allegedly surrendered $460,000 to the U.S. government. While the president has consistently denied wrongdoing, the documents are seen as critical to clarifying a decades-long controversy.
Greenspan, CEO of the transparency advocacy group Plainsite, first filed the FOIA request in June 2022, seeking access to records held by the FBI and DEA. The request aimed to shed light on the circumstances surrounding Tinubu’s prior entanglement with U.S. law enforcement and provide clarity for public interest reporting on his political career.
The FBI initially indicated in 2023 that it would release 2,500 pages of documents in monthly batches of 500 pages. However, the schedule quickly faltered after Mr. Tinubu requested a reprieve, arguing that the release of the records could adversely affect his status while his election victory was under review by the Nigerian Supreme Court. Judge Howell initially granted this request, temporarily delaying disclosure.
Even after the Nigerian Supreme Court upheld Tinubu’s election, however, the FBI and DEA continued to postpone production, raising repeated procedural motions that have frustrated plaintiffs and drawn the ire of the court. Judge Howell noted that the FBI, which had projected to complete searches and release documents by August 1, 2025, had repeatedly missed deadlines, pushing dates into September 2025, December 2025, January 2026, and then February 2026 with “minimal explanation.”
The DEA, similarly, faced criticism for holding back certain pages while claiming they were “out for consult” with other agencies. According to Judge Howell, the agency offered no clear timetable for completion, leaving 12 records in bureaucratic limbo for more than six months.
“The FBI has provided no reliable end date for the processing and production of responsive records,” the judge stated. “Similar to the current posture of the DEA in this case, the agencies’ repeated delays hinder public access and frustrate the transparency objectives of the FOIA request.”
In response to the delays, Judge Howell imposed a series of concrete requirements on both agencies. She directed the DEA to provide a Vaughn index, detailing the reasons for redacting 50 pages and withholding 172 pages. For the 12 documents sent to other agencies for consultation, she ordered sworn affidavits from DEA officials explaining, page by page, when records were transferred, the expected completion of review, and steps taken to expedite disclosure.
The FBI was instructed to produce all non-exempt documents concerning Tinubu, along with sworn statements explaining repeated missed deadlines. The court mandated that the bureau submit its first interim response within two weeks of January 30, 2026, followed by a second batch of 500 pages by March 13, with the final release scheduled by June 1, 2026.
Judge Howell also required that the FBI and DEA file joint status reports every 14 days starting February 27, tracking progress until all records are produced. She emphasized that these measures are not optional but “essential to ensure accountability and transparency under FOIA.”
The case traces back to a period in the early 1990s when Tinubu allegedly became involved in a cocaine-trafficking incident in the United States, ultimately leading to the surrender of nearly half a million dollars. While the president has repeatedly denied any criminal wrongdoing, the long-delayed FOIA documents are considered pivotal in understanding both the legal and political ramifications of the episode.
Legal experts note that FOIA delays of this magnitude are unusual, particularly when records have been pending for years and courts have repeatedly pressed agencies to comply. “This case highlights how bureaucratic inertia can undermine the statutory intent of FOIA, which is to provide timely access to information of public interest,” said a Washington-based attorney familiar with government transparency litigation.
The involvement of investigative journalist David Hundeyin has also brought significant public attention to the matter, framing the case as a test of U.S. government accountability in handling politically sensitive foreign figures. Greenspan and Hundeyin have maintained that the public has a right to access records that touch on alleged misconduct involving a sitting foreign leader who plays a critical role in African politics.
Both the FBI and DEA have signaled their intent to comply with the court’s orders. The FBI’s plan to release 500 pages per month reflects an effort to balance procedural review with the court’s deadlines, though past performance has raised questions about the agencies’ ability to meet timelines.
The DEA, meanwhile, faces scrutiny for its lack of clear communication regarding records under consultation. By requiring sworn affidavits and detailed explanations, Judge Howell is seeking to impose a level of accountability that previous reports and motions have not delivered.
The case also clarifies the CIA’s position; in April 2025, the judge granted the agency’s motion to be excused, after it successfully argued that it did not hold any records related to Tinubu. This leaves the FBI and DEA as the principal custodians responsible for disclosure.
The outcome of this FOIA request carries implications beyond the Tinubu case. Transparency advocates view it as a benchmark for how the U.S. government manages access to records concerning foreign political figures. The prolonged delays, coupled with the court’s firm intervention, underscore tensions between government discretion, bureaucratic processes, and the public’s right to information.
For President Tinubu, the disclosure of documents could reopen scrutiny of events long thought resolved, potentially affecting both domestic and international perceptions. Though he has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, the public release of official U.S. records is expected to shed new light on the circumstances surrounding his early 1990s financial surrender.
For the American public and the press, the case demonstrates the critical role of FOIA as a tool for accountability, particularly in instances involving high-profile foreign leaders. It also illustrates the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance and ensuring that agencies cannot indefinitely postpone access to information.
As the February deadlines approach, all eyes will be on the FBI and DEA to see whether they can finally meet the court’s requirements. With sworn affidavits, detailed production schedules, and biweekly status reports now mandated, Judge Howell has left little room for further delay, signaling that the three-year stalemate is approaching a potential conclusion.