Senior Advocate of Nigeria and member of President Bola Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, Wole Afolabi, has said the President would have faced indictment and prosecution if American authorities had credible evidence connecting him to drug trafficking.
Afolabi made the statement during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, where he addressed the ongoing legal dispute over the release of US government records concerning Tinubu.
The documents are being sought through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, who wants access to records held by agencies including the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
Afolabi said thousands of pages had already been released to Greenspan, while some portions remained redacted. He explained that the US government was seeking to protect information relating to investigative methods, sources and law enforcement personnel.
He maintained that Tinubu’s legal team was challenging the release of the redacted portions because US law allows individuals to seek such protections.
“This matter has been going on for quite some time, as you rightly said, and the DEA and other government agencies have produced documents and made available to Mr Greenspan.
“Now Mr Greenspan is asking that documents should be unredacted before they are handed over to him. The way the system works is this: it’s not what you want, it’s what the law stipulates.
“So precisely what we are doing is going under the coverage of the law. It’s what the law gives us the right to do. It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers,” he said.
Afolabi also rejected the suggestion that the US government was withholding the records to shield Tinubu. According to him, recent court filings by the Department of Justice focused on protecting investigative procedures and the identities of confidential sources and agents.
“In one of the recent filings that was made recently by the Department of Justice, it was stated in the footnote at page 24 that their concern is about the methodology by which information is gathered.
“No mention was made of any protection being offered to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu,” he said.
READ ALSO:
- FBNBank Senegal Partners Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games
- Tinubu Would Have Been Indicted If US Had Evidence Of Drug Trafficking — Lawyer
- I Wasn’t Invited To Baby Showers Because I Had No Child — Mo Bimpe
- Oncologist Reveals Growing Cancer Cases Among Nigerians Under 40
- Dangote Weighs Petrol Supply Cut For Fuel Importers
‘If There Was Evidence, Tinubu Would Have Been Indicted’
The lawyer argued that US authorities take drug trafficking allegations seriously and questioned why Tinubu would have been able to travel to and from the country without being arrested or prosecuted if sufficient evidence existed against him.
He cited the prosecutions of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega and former British Virgin Islands Premier Andrew Fahie, as well as other international drug-related cases, to support his argument.
“So the question that should be asked reasonably is this: what’s so special about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that he would be coming into America and leaving America without being arrested, detained or interviewed for anything?” he asked.
When directly asked whether he was asserting that Tinubu had never used drugs, been caught with heroin or participated in drug trafficking, Afolabi said his position was based on the available evidence.
“What the evidence shows,” he said.
The lawyer was also questioned about the $460,000 forfeited to US authorities in the 1990s and the circumstances surrounding the civil forfeiture proceedings.
Afolabi stressed that civil forfeiture should not be interpreted as a criminal conviction.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” he said.
He declined to disclose Tinubu’s personal account of the matter, citing attorney-client privilege.
“I’m acting as his lawyer, and as a lawyer, there is what you call attorney-client privilege, and it’s taken very seriously over here. One can lose one’s licence very easily.
“Unfortunately, I can’t divulge any information that my client had disclosed to me confidentially. I’m sorry,” he said.
‘Anyone Can Be A Subject Of Investigation’
Afolabi also refused to give a straightforward answer when asked whether Tinubu had ever been investigated by the FBI or DEA.
He explained that being the subject of an investigation does not necessarily mean that an individual committed a crime. He referenced historical investigations conducted by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to illustrate the distinction.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes. I mean, there’s a presumption of innocence,” Afolabi said.
He added that a person’s name appearing in law enforcement records should not automatically be taken as proof of criminal conduct.
‘The President Is Entitled To Privacy’
The lawyer further defended the legal team’s reliance on privacy protections, arguing that holding public office does not automatically remove an individual’s right to privacy.
He compared the situation with US President Donald Trump’s previous efforts to prevent the release of certain educational records, saying Trump had relied on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
“The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, wrote letters to the schools that he attended, Fordham, University of Pennsylvania, the business school, and even his high school, telling them that he was taking cover under FERPA, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
“That is, academic records should not be released. And his records were not released. He won the presidency. So President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not doing anything new. It’s been done here,” he said.
Afolabi maintained that public officials could legally rely on protections relating to private and personal information.
“Everybody takes advantage of it. Everybody. If the law offers you protection, there’s a reason why the law is there,” he said.
‘2027 Election Will Not Be Decided By Documents’
On the political implications of the legal battle, Afolabi dismissed suggestions that the records could determine Tinubu’s prospects in the 2027 presidential election.
He argued that voters would ultimately assess the President based on his record, promises and campaign.
“The Nigerian people knew who they voted for, and they know who is canvassing for re-election.
“At the end of the day, the election will not be decided on what document exists where. At the end of the day, it’s going to be decided by promises made, promises kept,” he said.
The lawyer maintained that Tinubu’s legal team would continue to rely on protections available under US law while the court considers the dispute.
The case remains before a US federal court, where further arguments are expected before a decision is made on whether any of the withheld portions of the records should be released.