₦airaland Forum

mindtricks:
His lackluster outing these 4 years aren't they already enough to help Nigeria know 'who' their "president" was?

We are talking about past, possible criminal records.

His present incompetence does not excuse Nigerians knowing his past.

zoedew:
I know you will mind your business and let everybody have their say.

You are the one that jumped on my comment, so maybe you should take your own advise and let others have thier say in peace.

Do we really need additional evidence that your president is a criminal.
Money meant for the purchase of 3000 CNG buses was diverted to purchase plenty buses for 2027 election.
All the Trillions of naira he keep borrowing, what is he using it for?
All the fake agency that was discovered under his watch, who approved it? In the history of Nigeria such fakery has never been established.
Nigerians, come 2027 election, the ball is in your court.

Cromagnon:
so only tinubu contested Osun?
Is he running for governor?

The EFCC who blocked the state account, the police who arrested many Accord party members, the APC people who were with guns and were released all these federal agencies who were active were all under the instructions of Atiku?


Yeye dey smell!


😂😂😂😂😂😂

Cromagnon:
at your big age you don't know who is good and who is bad?

Hiding personal information about president is now a good thing in your region abi?


Hypocrisy is part of your culture anyway.


🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Proof he never serves public interests!

BATified2023:
Tinubu get sense pass all of u

He will keep u busy with this till he wins again n after winning he will tell them to release it so u can know u are phuuuls

Are you not ashamed of yourself? The candidate you are supporting defines the kind of person you are. I’m sorry for you and those things that brought you to this life

peculiar2233:
Are you not ashamed of yourself? The candidate you are supporting defines the kind of person you are. I’m sorry for you and those things that brought you to this life

u can cry from now till eternity, Tinubu will rule u till 2031

BATified2023:
Tinubu get sense pass all of u

He will keep u busy with this till he wins again n after winning he will tell them to release it so u can know u are phuuuls

Omo ode win what .

The Northerners who pitied Him and voted Him bcus of Bubu has seen that in the hands of Tpain they will all PERISH,They will easily clip Bat's wing and remind the FAILURE above all FAILURES Tpain 70x worse than bubu that minus bubu all He had was His mumu DEAD ACN

Even His SW will be shared

Tpain na OTP jareh

PulaPower:
Una go make up story taya 🤣

shame dey catch you ? Here is Yoruba news paper punch

Kuginzi:
https://punchng.com/four-reasons-us-shouldnt-release-my-fbi-records-tinubu/

Summarized in simpler terms :

Absolutely. The easiest way to understand this is to separate what happened historically, what Greenspan is asking for now, and what Tinubu's lawyers are arguing in court.

The whole matter in very simple English

An American transparency activist named Aaron Greenspan wants the US government to release documents held by the FBI and DEA concerning President Bola Tinubu.

The documents reportedly include things such as:

FBI records concerning Tinubu.

Interview records from around 1992–1993.

Other law-enforcement records in which his name appears.


Tinubu's lawyers are not simply saying, "these documents don't exist."

Their main argument is:

> Even if the FBI and DEA have these records, US law allows the government to keep private information about an individual confidential, and Greenspan has not shown a sufficient legal reason for forcing the government to release the unredacted material.



That distinction is very important.


---

1. What started the controversy?

The background goes back to the early 1990s.

In 1993, there was a US civil forfeiture case involving about $460,000 in an account associated with Tinubu.

US authorities alleged that the money was connected to narcotics trafficking or prohibited financial transactions.

The important legal point is this:

Civil forfeiture is NOT automatically a criminal conviction.

Think of it this way:

Criminal case:

> "We believe this person committed a crime. We are prosecuting the person."



Civil forfeiture:

> "We believe this particular money/property is connected to unlawful activity, so we want the property forfeited."



Therefore, the fact that the $460,000 was forfeited does not by itself mean Tinubu was criminally convicted of drug trafficking.

This distinction became important during Nigeria's 2023 presidential election litigation.


---

2. What did the Nigerian election court say?

The opposition argued that Tinubu's history in the US should disqualify him from being president.

But the Presidential Election Petition Court concluded in September 2023 that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been:

arrested,

arraigned,

convicted, or

sentenced


in a criminal case in the United States.

So, in simple terms:

> The Nigerian election court did not find that Tinubu had a US criminal conviction for drug trafficking.



That does not necessarily mean every question about his US records was answered. It means the evidence before that court did not establish the criminal conviction alleged by the petitioners.


---

3. So what does Aaron Greenspan want?

Greenspan went to a US court and essentially said:

> "I want the FBI and DEA to release their records concerning Tinubu."



He relied on something called FOIA — the Freedom of Information Act.

FOIA is basically a US transparency law.

Think of FOIA as:

> "The American public has a legal mechanism for asking the government to show us what it is doing."



For example, someone might ask:

> "Show me the government's records concerning how it handled a particular investigation."



The government generally has to consider the request.

But FOIA has exceptions.

And that's where the legal battle begins.


---

4. Why didn't the FBI simply release everything?

Because US law protects certain types of information.

One of the important provisions mentioned here is:

FOIA Exemption 7(C)

In very simple terms:

> Law-enforcement records containing personal information can sometimes be withheld if releasing them would invade someone's privacy.



Imagine the FBI has a 500-page file.

It might contain:

names,

addresses,

telephone numbers,

witness information,

interview statements,

investigative details,

information about other people,

investigative methods,

allegations,

confidential sources.


The government doesn't necessarily have to publish all of that just because someone submits a FOIA request.

It can redact information.

Redaction simply means:

> The government blacks out information before releasing the document.



For example:

> "Mr. ______ was interviewed on ______ regarding ______."



The blacked-out sections are the redactions.


---

5. What exactly are Tinubu's lawyers arguing?

There are several layers to their argument.

Argument 1: FOIA is about government activities, not digging into private people's lives

This is probably the most important argument.

Tinubu's lawyers are relying on a US Supreme Court case called Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Their argument is essentially:

> FOIA exists primarily so citizens can understand what the government is doing.



Not:

> "Give me everything the government has ever collected about a particular person."



So they are saying:

Greenspan isn't really asking:

> "What did the FBI do?"



He is asking:

> "What does the FBI have about Tinubu?"



The lawyers say that is fundamentally different.


---

6. But isn't Tinubu the President?

This is where the argument becomes interesting.

Greenspan's position is essentially:

> "This isn't an ordinary private citizen. This man is the President of Nigeria, a country of more than 230 million people. Nigerians have an interest in knowing his background."



That sounds like a powerful argument.

But Tinubu's lawyers respond:

> That isn't necessarily the type of "public interest" that US FOIA law recognizes.



This is a very important legal distinction.

Greenspan is talking about:

Political/public interest

"People in Nigeria deserve to know about their president."

Tinubu's lawyers are talking about:

FOIA's legally recognized public interest

"Will releasing this information tell Americans something meaningful about the conduct of the US government?"

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.


---

7. The lawyers are basically saying: "Being president doesn't cancel privacy rights."

Their position is that Tinubu still has privacy rights under US law.

Their argument is essentially:

> "Just because this person became president of another country doesn't mean every private law-enforcement record about him automatically becomes public."



This is one of the central legal issues.


---

8. What about the argument that Nigerians deserve to know?

Greenspan's argument is basically:

> "This information could be important because Tinubu is Nigeria's president."



Tinubu's lawyers respond:

> "FOIA doesn't exist to settle Nigerian political disputes."



They believe Greenspan's request is being used to obtain information that could be useful in Nigerian politics.

In their view:

> The FOIA system shouldn't become a tool for opposition politicians or political activists to investigate an individual simply because that individual holds political office.



That's why the lawyers describe the request as having an ulterior motive.


---

9. What does "ulterior motive" mean?

It simply means:

> The lawyers believe Greenspan has another objective beyond the stated reason for requesting the documents.



Their suggestion is:

> "Greenspan says this is about transparency, but we believe the real purpose is to obtain information about Tinubu for political purposes."



However, that's their argument, not a final court finding that Greenspan actually has improper motives.

That's an important distinction.


---

10. What about the claim that the records could reveal a secret prosecution?

Some people have suggested that the FBI records might reveal something more serious — perhaps an investigation, prosecution, agreement, or decision by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.

Tinubu's lawyers are saying:

> There isn't enough evidence for those claims.



In plain English:

> "You cannot tell the court, 'Maybe there's a secret criminal case in those files,' and then use that speculation as a reason to force the government to reveal someone's private records."



They want Greenspan to provide evidence that there was actually government misconduct or something significant that justifies disclosure.


---

11. What does "burden" mean here?

You will see this phrase frequently in legal cases:

"The plaintiff has the burden."

It simply means:

> The person asking the court to do something has to provide enough legal and factual evidence to justify it.



Here:

Greenspan = plaintiff

He is the person asking the court to order greater disclosure.

Tinubu's lawyers are saying:

> "Greenspan hasn't met the legal standard necessary to force the release of these law-enforcement records."




---

12. What is a "Glomar response"?

This is one of the most confusing parts.

A Glomar response basically means:

> "We can neither confirm nor deny whether we have records responsive to your request."



Imagine you ask the FBI:

> "Do you have a file on John?"



The FBI could say:

> "We can't confirm or deny whether we have a file on John."



Why?

Because sometimes even confirming that an investigation or file exists could reveal sensitive information.

For example:

"Yes, we have a file on him."

could itself reveal:

> "The government investigated him."



So agencies sometimes use a Glomar response.


---

13. What happened to the Glomar response in this case?

This is significant.

According to the article, in April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to stop relying on the Glomar response.

In simple language:

> The judge said the agencies could no longer simply refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records in that manner.



Instead, the agencies were directed to process the records and apply the appropriate legal exemptions.

That doesn't mean:

> "Release everything."



It means more like:

> "Go through the records, determine what can legally be released, and redact or withhold what the law protects."



That's a major distinction.


---

14. So are the documents being released?

Not necessarily in full.

The FBI has apparently been processing the material but is seeking to keep some portions secret.

It has cited exemptions involving things such as:

law-enforcement information,

personal privacy,

investigative techniques,

safety of individuals.


So you can think of the process as:

Greenspan:
"Give me the records."

⬇️

FBI/DEA:
"We can't give you everything."

⬇️

Court:
"You can't simply use the Glomar response. Process the records properly."

⬇️

FBI:
"Okay, we'll process them, but we'll redact information protected by law."

⬇️

Greenspan:
"Those redactions/withholdings are improper. Release more."

⬇️

Tinubu's lawyers:
"No. The privacy and FOIA exemptions allow those portions to remain secret."

⬇️

Court:
Still has to decide the disputed legal issues.


---

15. What does "summary judgment" mean?

The article says Tinubu's lawyers asked the court to reject Greenspan's motion for summary judgment.

Don't let that phrase scare you.

In simple English:

Summary judgment

means:

> "Judge, the important facts aren't genuinely disputed, so you should decide the legal issue now without needing a full trial."



Greenspan apparently asked the court to rule in his favour regarding access to the records.

Tinubu's lawyers are asking the judge to reject that request.


---

16. The really important legal question

The case isn't simply:

> "Did Tinubu commit a crime?"



That is NOT what this particular FOIA case itself establishes.

The actual legal question is closer to:

> "Under US transparency and privacy laws, must the FBI and DEA release these records, or are they legally allowed to withhold/redact them?"



That is a completely different question.


---

17. Does this case prove Tinubu was involved in drug trafficking?

No.

This is extremely important.

The FOIA case itself does not establish that Tinubu committed drug trafficking.

The article says there was a historical US civil forfeiture proceeding involving $460,000 and allegations concerning narcotics-related proceeds or prohibited financial transactions.

But:

Civil forfeiture ≠ criminal conviction.

And the 2023 Nigerian election court found that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a US criminal case.

So we should not turn:

> "There are FBI/DEA records"



into:

> "The FBI/DEA records prove he committed a crime."



Those are two completely different propositions.


---

18. But why is the case still important?

Because the records could potentially contain information that isn't currently public.

That's why people are interested.

The records could potentially shed light on:

what US law-enforcement agencies investigated,

what information they gathered,

what interviews occurred,

what decisions agencies made,

what information was considered relevant,

and whether some material remains undisclosed.


But until the court orders disclosure, we don't know what the withheld portions actually contain.

This is where people need to be careful.


---

19. The simplest possible summary

If I reduced the entire article to five sentences, it would be this:

> An American activist, Aaron Greenspan, wants the FBI and DEA to release their records concerning Bola Tinubu. Tinubu's lawyers are asking a US court to allow the agencies to continue withholding or redacting parts of those records because US law protects personal privacy and certain law-enforcement information. They also argue that FOIA is intended to expose government activities, not to give people private information about individuals for political purposes. A US judge has already rejected the agencies' ability to simply say "we can neither confirm nor deny" whether responsive records exist and ordered them to process the records under applicable exemptions. The case is about whether US law requires disclosure of the records; it is not itself a criminal case against Tinubu and does not establish that he committed drug trafficking.



And the key distinction to remember:

1993:
US authorities pursued forfeiture of about $460,000 associated with Tinubu.

2023:
Nigerian election litigation examined whether this amounted to a criminal conviction/disqualification; the election court said the petitioners had not established a US criminal conviction.

2025:
A US judge ordered the FBI/DEA to move beyond the "we can neither confirm nor deny" position and process the records.

Now:
The fight is largely about how much of those records can legally remain secret under US privacy and FOIA exemptions.

So the headline "Tinubu fights release of FBI/DEA records" should not be interpreted as "Tinubu has been found guilty of something." The current legal battle is fundamentally a records-disclosure/privacy dispute under US law.

Omoslim26:
Omo ode win what .

The Northerners who pitied Him and voted Him bcus of Bubu has seen that in the hands of Tpain they will all PERISH,They will easily clip Bat's wing and remind the FAILURE above all FAILURES Tpain 70x worse than bubu that minus bubu all He had was His mumu DEAD ACN

Even His SW will be shared

Tpain na OTP jareh

chinedu u said pass this in 2023, na tears end am

Ji

HacheNoire:
Yes I do.

I wouldn’t want a my past love affairs to be made public now that I am in a relationship with my current sweetheart.

Dis is a childish defence, is being in a r/ship before bad, can you spend 10m not to allow your new switheart know yu neva be with woman before so for ur mind she think you are a Virgin na she be 1st to date

I wouldn’t want my records of my academics be made public as it is my choice and my right.

Another childish reponse, so if office HR ask for resume you will hire SANs to protect it 🤣 so university wey you go your classmtes dont know your results or they are not public

In investigations that has warranted my testimony, I also won’t want such records released as it is my last and I want to keep it that way.

Not that I am guilty, failed in sch,ool or not on good terms with all the women I had affairs with, I just want it to remain in the past.

I dont if you even understand the question, so these are the things you will spend millions hire nd SAN to protect from public ex gurlfriend 🤣 3rd class result nd other tins you cook up

Its okay, if only i knew i was talking to a kid

Cromagnon:
And still he won

By snatching, grabbing and running away with it? You guys are now celebrating criminality.

Ogbeni u no dey reason was the alleged epostein crimes committed in naija? Person go Chicago commit wetin consign Epstein

fredoooooo:
Baba we no care..make dem release Eppstein file too for their own presido..
Tinubu till 2031

DeepSight:
That is exactly what would have happened because Nigerians are naturally forgiving and forgetful - BUT for the fact that he is NOT delivering any dividends of democracy and has plunged the majority into the worst suffering of their lives.

Well... What can I say!😥

I CAN'T READ, SOME ONE SHOULD HELP ME LIST THE 4 REASONS WHY BAT IS AFRAID OF HIS CRIMINAL PAST

1vandragon:
What is bat so scared of about his past?

Since the US security agencies are reluctant to release the records, why bother joining the matter if there is truly nothing to hide?

Nigerians deserve to know 'who' their president 'was'...

The question, more or less, is: why are Atiku and co so desperate to see his records? It suggests that Tinubu is so powerful that he cannot be defeated through the regular election process alone – so the only option left is to disqualify him. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat.

aswani:
Morning, have you got any proof at all that this went past a glomar response?

Have you got any documentation showing this ruling against the "blanket" glomar response as I have searched high and low and asked repeatedly?

Also when did the US government publicly acknowledge this "subject of a wider criminal offence" thing, was it at a press conference or via a press release?

I am genuinely int in these information and my dear friend Ottersberger is too as it would help our ongoing discussion on another thread.

Thank you for your anticipated help.

My dear friend and brother. You called me, as usual.

In my village, a man once stole a cock and hid it inside his sack. Having witnessed the theft, the village youths gathered around him, calling him a “thief.” The man, seeing another adult nearby, beckoned him over. “Come and look inside the sack,” he said. “You can determine for yourself whether I stole the cock.”

The adult looked inside. Sure enough, the missing cock was there.

But instead of addressing what was plainly before him, the adult turned to the youths and reprimanded them. “Go home,” he said. “Nothing to see here.”

That story comes to mind whenever I read anyone trying to dismiss the FBI records concerning Bola Ahmed Tinubu as though the underlying FOIA case does not exist or in this form.

It does!.

And the timeline matters.

On March 29, 2023, Aaron Greenspan submitted a FOIA request seeking FBI records concerning Tinubu. When the FBI initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, a position commonly known as a “Glomar” response, Greenspan challenged that position in federal court.

We are now well beyond simply asking whether the FBI has records.

In the litigation, the FBI ultimately identified 399 pages of potentially responsive material and asked the court to review the records “under seal, ex parte, and in camera.” In plain English, the government is asking the judge to examine the records privately before deciding what, if anything, can be released publicly.

That is a very different situation from saying, “There are no records or a glomar response.”

And this distinction matters.

I am a fair-minded person, and to be clear, the existence of 399 pages does not prove that Tinubu committed a crime. Nor does a FOIA proceeding amount to a criminal finding against him. Those are claims that require evidence, and we should not manufacture conclusions that the court has not made.

But the opposite claim, that there is nothing here, or that the entire matter is fabricated, is equally difficult to sustain in light of the now available court record.

The obvious question is therefore not whether the records exist. The question is: what do they contain, and why were they generated?.

If the records contain nothing of consequence, transparency should settle the matter. If they contain information relevant to Tinubu's past legal trouble, Nigerians and the wider public should be allowed to understand that information and draw their own conclusions.

And 399 pages is not a trivial amount of material. It is substantial enough to warrant serious public interest and scrutiny.

This is why dismissing the issue outright does a disservice to the very person being defended and the defenders. Credibility is not strengthened by pretending the evidence does not exist. It is strengthened by confronting the evidence directly.

The United States is an open-records system with judicial mechanisms for challenging government secrecy. That process is precisely what is happening here. On the face of it, the claim that lives will be at risk because of these files makes it even more intriguing and compelling. Who is our president?. What had he done?.

So, my dear friend, let us not be like the adult who opened the sack, saw the cock, and then told everyone:

“Nothing to see here.”

Open the sack.

Let the judge examine the records. Let the law determine what can be released. And, most importantly, let the evidence speak for itself.

Tenses:
If them like make them kidnap all the school children in Nigeria and Benin 🇧🇯 we go dissect that tinubu released files until election day. We go convert am to all Nigeria languages.

BATified2023:
how much is full chicken?



Poor man n him way of reasoning

why u want make SalamRushdie cry to bed by all means

ottersberger:
My dear friend and brother. You called me, as usual.

On March 29, 2023, Aaron Greenspan submitted a FOIA request seeking FBI records concerning Tinubu. When the FBI initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, a position commonly known as a “Glomar” response, Greenspan challenged that position in federal court.

Thanks for this.

The problem is there is absolutely nothing so far showing anything after the glomar response for the FBI request.

We don't have any proof post that response, none at all. We have people claiming the judge angrily responding. We have nothing on Greenspan's social media network, this is the person that you would expect to have a full update on every court case and postponement, alas pure silence.

Also, Kio Amachree who saw all this evidence has suddenly stopped talking about the evidence he saw.

I wouldn't mind being proved wrong, alas we now have 399 pages plucked out of the air by Ikeamafuna Van Basten. That is the latest Obidients are running with yet no proof of where the number came from.

Same as the private viewing by the judge, another nonsense. FBI would want to show a judge something private and lobbyists will be aware.

Also, nothing on the FBI website about this long drawn case. Nothing tagging judge Howell to the case from US websites. Nothing on judge Howell's case docket.

It's a lot of white noise with lie upon lie being piled on each other.

Obidients make an assumption that something is true, despite no proof, then start spinning tales off it.

So we have a drug lord in aso rock... Is ts a pity

aswani:
Thanks for this.

The problem is there is absolutely nothing so far showing anything after the glomar response for the FBI request.

We don't have any proof post that response, none at all. We have people claiming the judge angrily responding. We have nothing on Greenspan's social media network, this is the person that you would expect to have a full update on every court case and postponement, alas pure silence.

Also, Kio Amachree who saw all this evidence has suddenly stopped talking about the evidence he saw.

I wouldn't mind being proved wrong, alas we now have 399 pages plucked out of the air by Ikeamafuna Van Basten. That is the latest Obidients are running with yet no proof of where the number came from.

Same as the private viewing by the judge, another nonsense. FBI would want to show a judge something private and lobbyists will be aware.

Also, nothing on the FBI website about this long drawn case. Nothing tagging judge Howell to the case from US websites. Nothing on judge Howell's case docket.

It's a lot of white noise with lie upon lie being piled on each other.

Obidients make an assumption that something is true, despite no proof, then start spinning tales off it.

I respectfully disagree with your position. If you require my continued involvement, please say so.

The president enjoys immeasurable immunities as a sitting president. Have a sin free vacation and revitalize surely for the campaigns ahead .
enjoy best dad

ghm:
The question, more or less, is: why are Atiku and co so desperate to see his records? It suggests that Tinubu is so powerful that he cannot be defeated through the regular election process alone – so the only option left is to disqualify him. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat.

Nigerians are entitled to know who their president is.

ottersberger:
I respectfully disagree with your position. If you require my continued involvement, please say so.

You are welcome to disagree.

We had the same argument on the Kio Amachree thread where you disagreed and I was proven right as nothing came out of it by way of proof.

I believe same will happen again, nothing will come out of this as your position is one based on speculation without proof.

ghm:
The question, more or less, is: why are Atiku and co so desperate to see his records? It suggests that Tinubu is so powerful that he cannot be defeated through the regular election process alone – so the only option left is to disqualify him. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat.

Ok. So what is bat afraid of?

1vandragon:
What is bat so scared of about his past?

Since the US security agencies are reluctant to release the records, why bother joining the matter if there is truly nothing to hide?

Nigerians deserve to know 'who' their president 'was'...

bi iwo be se rere are ki yio wa ya o bi? Olododo yio laya bi kiniun. Ododo lo n gbe orilede leke.

Wiseman2y:
bi iwo be se rere are ki yio wa ya o bi? Olododo yio laya bi kiniun. Ododo lo n gbe orilede leke.

Bee ni