Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over reports that his legal team is seeking to restrict the release of records held by US law enforcement agencies relating to historical investigations.
The controversy centres on a 16-page court filing in which lawyers representing Tinubu reportedly asked a US court to prevent the release of records held by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The President’s lawyers argued that disclosure of the documents could infringe his privacy rights.
Reacting to the development, Obi described the move as embarrassing, saying a sitting president should have the courage to address questions concerning his past.
“It is profoundly embarrassing that we have reached a point where a sitting President is asking a foreign court to withhold records concerning his past, particularly records relating to matters of legitimate public interest,” Obi said.
The former Anambra State governor argued that leadership required transparency and accountability, adding that leaders should be prepared to acknowledge mistakes, provide explanations and accept responsibility where necessary.
The dispute has attracted further attention following comments by US-based policy advisory and lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., which claimed that the records relate to allegations of heroin trafficking.
The firm said in a post on its verified X account that Tinubu could travel to New York for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), but claimed that a private meeting between the Nigerian President and US President Donald Trump would not take place.
It further alleged that officials within the Trump administration would not privately meet Tinubu over the heroin-trafficking allegations.
The firm said it was prepared, if authorised, to launch a campaign in New York aimed at drawing public attention to the allegations during the UNGA.
It also rejected claims that Tinubu had never been criminally investigated by the FBI in relation to heroin trafficking, saying it had obtained a substantial volume of FBI records and was reviewing the documents.
The firm cited an FBI declaration submitted to a US federal court, which stated that responsive records had been compiled as part of an investigation into several individuals over drug-trafficking offences.
The FBI has also sought permission to withhold some of the material under law-enforcement exemptions, arguing that disclosure could reveal investigative techniques and potentially put individuals at risk.
Tinubu’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, Reno Omokri, however, defended the President and challenged the characterisation of the documents as his “criminal records”.
Omokri argued that the FBI could hold records containing Tinubu’s name without those documents necessarily constituting evidence of criminal conduct.
According to him, US law enforcement databases contain a wide range of information on individuals, including material generated through routine background checks and visa-related processes.
He said such records could include biometric, biographical and financial information and that their existence did not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing.
The controversy is partly linked to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing in relation to the allegations.
The legal dispute intensified after the FBI confirmed that it had records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by journalist Tom Burgis and others.
The bureau subsequently asked the court to allow some of the documents to be submitted for private judicial review, arguing that their public disclosure could compromise law-enforcement interests.
A US judge granted permission for sensitive materials to be submitted privately, allowing the court to examine the documents without immediately making them available to the public.
