A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and member of President Bola Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, Wole Afolabi, has argued that the President would have been indicted, arrested and prosecuted if there were sufficient evidence linking him to drug trafficking in the US.
Afolabi made the claim during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, where he addressed the ongoing legal battle over the release of records held by the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
The documents are the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking access to records relating to Tinubu and previous investigations.
Afolabi said US authorities had already released thousands of pages of documents but were seeking to keep some portions redacted on the grounds that their disclosure could compromise law enforcement methods, sources and agents.
According to the lawyer, Tinubu’s legal team’s decision to challenge the release of the redacted sections was based on rights provided under US law and did not amount to an attempt to conceal incriminating information.
He explained that the legal team was simply exercising the rights available under American law.
“It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers,” Afolabi said.
The lawyer also rejected suggestions that the US government was withholding the records specifically to protect Tinubu.
He said a recent filing by the Department of Justice focused on protecting investigative methods as well as 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.
‘If there was evidence, Tinubu would have been indicted’
Afolabi argued that drug trafficking was treated as a serious offence by US authorities and questioned why Tinubu would have been permitted to enter and leave the country without being arrested or prosecuted if sufficient evidence existed against him.
He cited the cases of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega and former British Virgin Islands Premier Andrew Fahie as examples of individuals who faced prosecution over drug-related allegations.
He also referred to US actions involving Venezuelan officials and extradition proceedings against Nigerians accused of drug trafficking.
“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.
The lawyer said the absence of an indictment against Tinubu was significant, while stressing that the principle of presumption of innocence remained applicable.
When asked directly whether Tinubu had never taken drugs, had never been caught with heroin or had never been involved in drug trafficking, Afolabi said he was relying on the evidence available.
“What the evidence shows,” he responded.
Lawyer declines details of forfeiture case
Afolabi was also questioned about the $460,000 forfeited to US authorities in the 1990s and the circumstances surrounding the civil forfeiture proceedings.
He maintained that civil forfeiture did not mean Tinubu had been found criminally culpable.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” he said.
However, the lawyer declined to disclose details of Tinubu’s 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,” he said.
“Unfortunately, I can’t divulge any information that my client had disclosed to me confidentially.”
Why Tinubu’s legal team opposes release of some records
The interview also examined why Tinubu’s lawyers were challenging the release of portions of the records if, as Afolabi maintained, they contained no incriminating evidence against the President.
Afolabi stressed that the legal action was not intended to prevent the release of all the documents, noting that the FBI and DEA had already produced thousands of pages.
He said the US government’s concern, according to its court filings, was that releasing certain information could expose confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The lawyer said the authorities had cited cases in which individuals allegedly targeted FBI agents after their identities were disclosed.
He maintained that the case would ultimately be determined by the law rather than political considerations.
‘The President is entitled to privacy’
Afolabi also defended the legal team’s reliance on privacy protections, arguing that becoming president did not automatically strip an individual of all privacy rights.
He compared the case with US President Donald Trump’s efforts to prevent the release of some of his academic records.
According to Afolabi, Trump had relied on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in relation to records from institutions he attended.
The Nigerian lawyer argued that the same principle demonstrated that occupying the highest political office did not automatically remove an individual’s legal rights to privacy and protection of certain personal records.
