GRENSPAN REVEALS FOUR US CASES LINKED TO 1990S DRUG INVESTIGATION INVOLVING TINUBU, AGEBELE, RAISES QUESTIONS OVER POSSIBLE SEALED CRIMINAL INDICTMENT

American journalist and transparency activist Aaron Greenspan has identified at least three publicly known United States cases connected to a drug-trafficking and money-laundering investigation that he says was pursued by American law-enforcement agencies in the 1990s, while also raising the possibility of a fourth case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Greenspan said the possible fourth case could involve a criminal indictment filed under seal, although he stressed that he has not established that such an indictment exists.

He disclosed the details in an exclusive interview with Laolu Akande, founder of Empowered Newswire, published on Wednesday, as part of his continuing efforts to obtain historical FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration records concerning investigations involving Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele.

The records are being sought through Greenspan’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, is a civil dispute over access to government records and is not itself a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

According to Greenspan, the known cases connected to the alleged drug network include a series of criminal indictments issued in 1992 involving individuals allegedly connected to the network, a separate criminal case involving Agbele, and a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.

“There’s at least three known cases now that are tied to this drug ring,” Greenspan said.

He explained that the first was the “1992 set of criminal indictments,” which he said is available through the US National Archives.

The second, according to Greenspan, was an indictment involving Agbele, although he said the date of that indictment remains unknown.

The third was the civil forfeiture case involving funds associated with Tinubu.

Greenspan, however, said his examination of the historical records has raised the possibility that there may be another case involving Tinubu himself.

“There could be a fourth. There could be a criminal indictment of Bola Tinubu as well, and that’s what we’re trying to do,” he said.

He immediately qualified the claim, stressing that there is currently no conclusive evidence establishing the existence of such an indictment.

“I don’t have any evidence that such a deal had been made, to be very clear,” Greenspan said when discussing the possibility of a sealed proceeding. “That remains an open question right now.”

Greenspan said the possibility of an additional case partly arose from the level of detail contained in some of the historical investigative records he has obtained or reviewed.

According to him, the material includes information concerning bank accounts, Tinubu’s wife, possible involvement by his mother and even details relating to a Nissan vehicle and its vehicle identification number.

He questioned why investigators would have assembled such detailed information without a publicly visible criminal prosecution involving Tinubu.

Greenspan said one possibility was that American authorities investigated the matter extensively but ultimately decided not to prosecute.

Another possibility, he said, was that a criminal case had been filed but remained sealed.

A sealed criminal case would generally not appear in publicly accessible court records unless the court later ordered the records unsealed.

However, Greenspan has not presented evidence establishing that a sealed criminal indictment against Tinubu exists.

The investigation also involves Agbele, whom Greenspan said was connected to the same alleged drug network.

Greenspan said historical records described Agbele as the nephew of Mueez Akande, whom he identified as a Chicago-based figure allegedly involved in facilitating heroin distribution from Thailand and other parts of Asia through Nigeria.

According to Greenspan, Tinubu’s alleged connection to the investigation was financial rather than direct involvement in the physical distribution of heroin.

“Bola Tinubu comes into this because he was not distributing heroin directly. He was (accused of) laundering money for the proceeds from the heroin distribution,” he said.

Greenspan cited testimony by DEA Special Agent Vincent Balbo in a criminal proceeding involving Lee Andrew Edwards.

He said Balbo testified that Agbele had supplied heroin to Edwards’ organisation and that the drugs originated from Nigeria.

Greenspan said the historical material cited in his FOIA filings also indicated that Agbele had been arrested and indicted.

However, he said searches of the US federal court records system, PACER, have not produced a publicly accessible criminal case against Agbele.

Greenspan said the absence of a publicly accessible case has raised questions over whether records relating to the alleged indictment remain sealed or otherwise unavailable.

The Edwards case itself involved a criminal prosecution relating to a heroin-trafficking organisation operating in Gary, Indiana, during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The existence of that prosecution does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.

Another significant element of the historical records is the 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 in an account held in Tinubu’s name.

Greenspan’s court filings cite an October 4, 1993 decree of forfeiture issued in the Northern District of Illinois.

The proceeding involved funds claimed by Tinubu and other individuals and resulted in the money being forfeited to the United States.

The court records cited in the FOIA litigation described the funds as proceeds of narcotics trafficking or money involved in transactions prohibited under US law.

However, the proceeding was a civil forfeiture action and not a criminal conviction of Tinubu.

Court records indicate that the United States and the individual claimants agreed to settle and compromise the action.

The distinction between the civil forfeiture proceeding and a criminal conviction has also been repeatedly emphasised by the Nigerian Presidency.

In September, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the Washington proceedings were a civil FOIA records dispute and not a criminal case against Tinubu.

He also said no US court had found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the FOIA case.

Greenspan’s broader lawsuit followed multiple FOIA requests he submitted in 2022 and 2023 to several US government agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, Internal Revenue Service and Executive Office for US Attorneys.

The requests sought records concerning a joint investigation into an alleged Chicago-area heroin-trafficking and money-laundering network said to have operated during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Tinubu, Agbele, Edwards and Mueez Adegboyega Akande were among the individuals identified in the requests.

The FBI and DEA initially responded to some of Greenspan’s requests using a “Glomar response,” a legal position under which an agency says it can neither confirm nor deny whether responsive records exist.

Greenspan challenged that position in court.

On April 8, 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on the Glomar response for the records at issue after considering Greenspan’s arguments concerning previous official disclosures.

The case has since continued over the records that should be released and the information that may lawfully remain withheld or redacted under exemptions contained in the US Freedom of Information Act.

The Presidency has said the FBI and DEA produced hundreds of pages of records, with portions withheld or redacted under statutory exemptions relating to areas including grand-jury material, confidential sources, investigative techniques and personal privacy.

Tinubu has also intervened in the case and invoked privacy protections over some of the records.

The latest developments in the litigation have also included Greenspan’s allegations concerning cyberattacks against PlainSite, the legal research website he operates.

In a September 9 filing, Greenspan asked Judge Howell for permission to serve six written questions, four requests for admission and a document request on Tinubu.

He also sought a subpoena requiring DCI Group AZ, a Washington public-affairs firm registered as an agent of the Nigerian government, to produce documents.

Greenspan has not accused Tinubu of ordering the alleged cyberattacks, and no court has found that Tinubu, the Nigerian government or DCI Group was responsible for them.

He has alleged that the attacks coincided with significant developments in the FOIA litigation and became severe enough at certain points to disrupt access to PlainSite.

His filing also referred to an August 5 social-media post from an account identified as “Secure Nigeria,” which described Greenspan as an opposition-linked figure.

He said a major cyberattack began the following day.

Greenspan, however, acknowledged that the timing does not establish who was responsible for the alleged attacks.

The continuing litigation is therefore focused on access to historical US government records and whether additional documents relating to the alleged 1990s investigation can be released.

While Greenspan has identified three known proceedings and raised the possibility of a fourth involving a potential sealed criminal indictment against Tinubu, the existence of such an indictment remains unproven.

The publicly established proceeding before the US District Court for the District of Columbia remains a civil FOIA records-access dispute and should not be confused with a criminal prosecution or conviction of Tinubu.