President Bola Ahmed Tinubu could face renewed scrutiny over a decades-old United States investigation after a prosecutor appointed by US President Donald Trump moved to comply with a court order directing the release of records linked to the case.
Jeanine Pirro, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, has asked the federal court for more time to comply with the directive requiring the release of records held by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration concerning the investigation involving Tinubu.
The request was made as the legal battle over the records enters another stage. The documents are being sought in connection with allegations surrounding a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking investigation from the late 1980s and early 1990s.
According to Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm retained by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Pirro asked US District Judge Beryl Howell for an additional 10 days to meet the court’s directive.
Howell, however, granted only a four-day extension.
The new deadline for the release of the records is August 21.
The development comes after Howell had previously ordered the FBI and DEA to search for and process records that could be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The judge had rejected the agencies’ earlier position that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of some of the requested records.
The case was brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a series of FOIA requests seeking records relating to the investigation.
Greenspan’s requests covered records concerning Tinubu and other individuals connected to the Chicago narcotics investigation.
Von Batten-Montague-York welcomed the latest move by the US Justice Department and Pirro.
The firm, which has been pushing for greater disclosure of the records, said the documents should be released once the court’s deadline expires.
It has also argued that the strategic relationship between Nigeria and the United States should not prevent American authorities from releasing records concerning allegations involving a Nigerian leader.
“Shared interests with Nigeria do not mean supporting an alleged drug trafficker,” the campaigners said.
The lobbying firm has been active in drawing the attention of American officials to issues concerning Tinubu and Nigeria.
In July, the firm disclosed that it had started distributing more than 60 pages of US Department of Justice documents and related court materials concerning Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture case to officials in the Trump administration and members of Congress.
The material included court filings, affidavits and judicial decisions connected to the long-running matter.
The firm said it wanted the historical records to receive attention from senior officials in Washington.
The latest court process is, however, separate from the political campaign being mounted by the lobbying firm.
The records being sought originate from a US investigation into a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking network that operated between 1988 and 1991.
US authorities investigated individuals including Mueez Abiodun Akande and Abiodun Agbele in connection with the network.
Tinubu’s name appeared in records relating to funds held in US bank accounts during the period.
One of the most frequently cited aspects of the case is the forfeiture of $460,000.
According to previously released US court records, the money was held in an account associated with Tinubu at First Heritage Bank.
US authorities eventually secured the forfeiture of the funds in 1993.
The forfeiture followed an investigation into whether the money was connected to narcotics trafficking or financial transactions involving proceeds of illegal activity.
The case has remained politically sensitive because of the different interpretations placed on the forfeiture proceeding.
Tinubu’s representatives have repeatedly rejected claims that he was convicted of drug trafficking in the United States.
They have maintained that the 1993 proceeding was a civil forfeiture case brought against money and not a criminal prosecution against Tinubu.
They have also stressed that Tinubu was not arrested, charged or convicted of a drug-trafficking offence in the United States.
The distinction has remained central to Tinubu’s defence whenever the issue resurfaces.
The Presidency also previously dismissed the significance of the US court’s order for the release of the records.
In April 2025, following Howell’s ruling, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said the order did not amount to an indictment of Tinubu.
The Presidency argued that the records related to an old matter and that there was nothing new in the court’s decision.
The court order itself followed years of attempts by Greenspan to obtain the records.
He had filed multiple FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023.
The requests sought information from American law enforcement agencies concerning the alleged federal investigation involving Tinubu and others.
For years, the agencies had resisted releasing some of the requested information.
That position changed after Howell ruled that the agencies were required to search for and process non-exempt records.
In her ruling, Howell questioned the continued use of so-called “Glomar” responses, under which government agencies neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records.
The judge held that such a response was difficult to justify in circumstances where the existence of the investigation had already been acknowledged.
The latest request by Pirro therefore represents another stage in the dispute over the records.
Pirro became the US Attorney for the District of Columbia after being appointed by Trump. Her office has responsibility for federal prosecutions in Washington, including cases involving drug trafficking and other serious offences.
The decision to seek a limited extension does not itself establish what the records contain or whether they will produce any new allegation against Tinubu.
It only indicates that the Justice Department is seeking additional time to comply with the existing court directive.
The contents of any records eventually released will determine whether they contain information that has not previously been made public.
