American journalist and transparency activist Aaron Greenspan has identified at least three separate US cases connected to a drug-trafficking network that he says was investigated by American law-enforcement agencies in the 1990s, including proceedings involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele.
Greenspan also raised the possibility of a fourth case involving Tinubu, potentially a criminal indictment filed under seal, although he stressed that he has no conclusive evidence that such an indictment exists.
Greenspan disclosed the details in an exclusive interview with Laolu Akande, founder of Empowered Newswire, published on Wednesday.
The revelations form part of his ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where he is seeking the release of historical FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records relating to investigations involving Tinubu and Agbele.
The lawsuit, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, is a civil dispute over access to government records and is not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
According to Greenspan, the three known cases comprise a series of criminal indictments from 1992 involving members of the alleged drug network, a separate criminal case involving Agbele, and the 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding through which US authorities obtained about US$460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
“There’s at least three known cases now that are tied to this drug ring,” Greenspan said.
“There is the 1992 set of criminal indictments, which is where this transcript comes from, and that’s available in the National Archives. There’s the unknown date indictment of Mr Agbele, and then there’s the civil forfeiture case, which involves Bola Tinubu.”
Possible fourth case
Greenspan said the records raised the possibility that there could be another case involving Tinubu himself.
“There could be a fourth. There could be a criminal indictment of Bola Tinubu as well, and that’s what we’re trying to do,” he said.
However, he made clear that the existence of such an indictment has not been established.
“I don’t have any evidence that such a deal had been made, to be very clear,” Greenspan said when discussing the possibility of a sealed proceeding. “That remains an open question right now.”
Greenspan said the question arose partly because of the level of detail contained in some of the historical investigative material he has obtained or reviewed.
He said the records contain information about bank accounts, Tinubu’s wife, possible involvement by his mother, and even details concerning a Nissan vehicle and its vehicle identification number.
“It is very detailed. Yet, at the end of all this excruciating detail, nothing happens,” he said.
According to Greenspan, this could mean that authorities investigated the matter for years but ultimately decided not to prosecute, or that a criminal case was filed but remains sealed.
A sealed criminal case would not ordinarily be visible in publicly accessible court records unless a court later ordered it unsealed.
Greenspan, however, did not present evidence establishing that a sealed criminal indictment against Tinubu exists.
Agbele and alleged heroin network
Greenspan said Agbele was connected to the same investigation and was described in historical records as the nephew of Mueez Akande, whom Greenspan said was a Chicago-based figure involved in facilitating heroin distribution from Thailand and other parts of Asia through Nigeria.
Greenspan said Tinubu’s alleged connection to the investigation was financial rather than direct participation in heroin distribution.
“Bola Tinubu comes into this because he was not distributing heroin directly. He was (accused of) laundering money for the proceeds from the heroin distribution,” he said.
He cited testimony by DEA Special Agent Vincent Balbo in a criminal proceeding involving Lee Andrew Edwards.
Greenspan said Balbo testified that Agbele had supplied heroin to Edwards’ organisation and that the drugs originated from Nigeria.
The historical material has been cited in Greenspan’s FOIA filings. According to reports based on those filings, Balbo also testified that Agbele had been arrested and indicted.
Greenspan says, however, that searches of the US federal court records system, PACER, have not located a publicly accessible criminal case against Agbele, which he argues raises the possibility that related records remain sealed.
The Edwards case itself involved a criminal prosecution. Edwards was convicted of operating a heroin-trafficking organisation in Gary, Indiana, during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The existence of that prosecution does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.
The US$460,000 forfeiture
The third case identified by Greenspan is the civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately US$460,000 in an account held in Tinubu’s name.
Greenspan’s filings cite an October 4, 1993 decree of forfeiture in the Northern District of Illinois. The proceeding involved funds claimed by Tinubu and other individuals and resulted in the money being forfeited to the United States.
The court records cited in the FOIA litigation describe the money as proceeds of narcotics trafficking or funds involved in transactions prohibited by US law.
However, the proceeding was a civil forfeiture case, not a criminal conviction of Tinubu. Court records indicate that the United States and individual claimants agreed to settle and compromise the action.
This distinction has also been repeatedly emphasised by the Nigerian Presidency.
In September, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga said the ongoing Washington case was a civil FOIA records dispute and “not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.” He also said the court had not found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
What Greenspan is seeking
Greenspan’s broader lawsuit began after he filed multiple FOIA requests in 2022 and 2023 with US agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, Internal Revenue Service and Executive Office for US Attorneys.
The requests sought records concerning a joint investigation into a Chicago-area heroin trafficking and money-laundering network operating in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tinubu, Agbele, Edwards and Mueez Adegboyega Akande were among the individuals identified in the requests.
The FBI and DEA initially used what is known as a Glomar response, under which an agency says it can neither confirm nor deny whether responsive records exist.
But in an April 8, 2025 ruling, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the agencies could no longer rely on that response in relation to the records at issue, after considering Greenspan’s arguments about previous official disclosures.
The case has since continued over what records should be released and what information may lawfully remain redacted or withheld.
The Presidency said in September that the FBI and DEA had produced 399 pages of records, with portions withheld or redacted under several statutory exemptions, including protections for grand-jury material, confidential sources, investigative techniques and personal privacy.
Tinubu has also intervened in the case and invoked privacy protections over some of the records.
Separate dispute over cyberattacks
The latest developments in the FOIA case have also included Greenspan’s allegations concerning repeated cyberattacks against PlainSite, the legal research website he operates.
In a September 9 filing, Greenspan asked Judge Howell for permission to serve six written questions, four requests for admission and a document request on Tinubu. He also sought a subpoena requiring DCI Group AZ, a Washington public-affairs firm registered as an agent of the Nigerian government, to produce documents.
Greenspan has not accused Tinubu of ordering the attacks, and no court has found that Tinubu, the Nigerian government or DCI Group was responsible.
He says the attacks coincided with significant developments in the FOIA litigation and were severe enough at certain points to disrupt access to PlainSite.
Greenspan’s filing also referred to an August 5 social-media post from an account called “Secure Nigeria”, which described him as an opposition-linked figure. He said a major cyberattack began the following day. But he acknowledged that the timing does not establish who was behind the attacks.
Source: https://saharareporters.com/
