US court upholds CIA’s position on Bola Tinubu’s past records

The agencies’ defence echoes a sentiment of safeguarding US interests and partnerships, but the decision has prompted criticism.

In a recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, American intelligence agencies asserted that Nigerians have no right to unfiltered access to information regarding President Bola Tinubu’s past, particularly concerning alleged drug trafficking investigations.

The case, which has sparked controversy, centres around requests for full disclosure from the CIA, FBI, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on records tied to Tinubu.

According to Sahara Reporters, this development stems from a motion filed by Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin, who has been leading efforts to obtain unredacted information on Tinubu.

In a social media post, Hundeyin reported that the CIA, FBI, and DEA had submitted a joint memorandum on Monday, arguing against the release of sensitive details on Tinubu. According to Hundeyin, the CIA’s filing includes language suggesting that Nigeria’s sitting president may be an “active CIA asset.”

The intelligence agencies’ stance hinges on national security arguments. The CIA memorandum emphasised the potential risks associated with confirming or denying Tinubu’s involvement with the agency.

“Human sources can be expected to furnish information to the CIA only when they are confident the CIA can and will do everything in its power to prevent the public disclosure of their cooperation,” read an excerpt from the memorandum.

It further cautioned that exposing Tinubu’s potential ties could endanger both him and his contacts, warning that “official confirmation of that cooperation could cause the targets to take retaliatory action.”

In addition to the CIA’s statements, the DEA argued that while Nigerians deserve transparency from their government, they do not have the right to unrestricted access to their president’s personal background.

“We oppose full, unredacted disclosure of the DEA’s Bola Tinubu heroin trafficking investigation records because… they do not have a right to know what their president is up to,” the agency stated.

The agencies’ defence echoes a sentiment of safeguarding US interests and partnerships, but the decision has prompted criticism.

Hundeyin expressed frustration with the US’s role in African governance, accusing American intelligence of bolstering “terrible leaders” and contributing to regional instability.

The case highlights the complexities of international transparency, national security, and public accountability, especially where sensitive intelligence relationships intersect with public scrutiny.