US firm reveals Tinubu may face criminal charges after leaving office over alleged drug trafficking

• Von Batten-Montague-York says Tinubu may face criminal charges after leaving office over longstanding heroin-trafficking allegations.

• The firm admits the documents it reviewed do not establish that the US government plans to prosecute Tinubu.

• The FBI says releasing certain information could expose people connected to the investigation to violent retaliation, including possible attacks on agents or informants.

• The disputed FBI and DEA records are being examined privately by US District Judge Beryl Howell as the FOIA case continues.

President Bola Tinubu may face criminal charges in the United States after leaving office over longstanding allegations linked to a heroin-trafficking investigation, a US-based policy advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has claimed.

The firm made the claim in a statement published on its verified X account while commenting on ongoing legal proceedings involving records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration .

Von Batten-Montague-York said its assessment was based on its reading of court filings in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case concerning records related to the decades-old investigation.

However, the firm stressed that the documents it reviewed do not establish that the US government has decided to prosecute Tinubu.

“Based on our reading of some of the case filings, we believe President Tinubu may face criminal charges after he leaves office, when he no longer has immunity ratione personae, in connection with the heroin-trafficking allegations,” the firm said. (X)

The firm said the FBI and DEA had separately been asked to confirm that, more than 30 years after the events in question, no investigation or enforcement proceeding remained pending over the alleged offences.

According to the firm, both agencies declined to make that confirmation, instead stating that they were “not obligated to comment on whether a law enforcement investigation or proceeding may exist.” 

Von Batten-Montague-York said the agencies’ responses did not prove that Tinubu would be prosecuted, but argued that their refusal to rule out an existing investigation or proceeding raised questions about the status of the matter.

The development comes amid a long-running legal battle over access to US government records relating to Tinubu and allegations dating back to the early 1990s.

American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests seeking records from several US agencies, including the FBI and DEA. In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on a blanket refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning Tinubu and ordered the agencies to search for and process records that were not legally exempt from disclosure. 

The case has since produced a series of court filings, with the FBI and DEA withholding portions of the records on grounds including privacy, protection of confidential sources, investigative methods and the safety of individuals connected to the investigation.

In one of the latest developments, the FBI warned a US court that releasing certain information from the records could expose people connected to the investigation to violent retaliation.

In a filing submitted on August 28, the bureau invoked the FOIA's Exemption 7(F), which permits law-enforcement records to be withheld when disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual's life or physical safety.

The FBI said people whose names or identifying information appeared in the investigative records could potentially be targeted by individuals connected to the criminal activities under investigation or by members of the public. 

The bureau also argued that publicly explaining some of the reasons for withholding the information could itself expose the sensitive details it was seeking to protect. It therefore asked to provide additional explanations to Judge Howell privately and under seal.

This is the basis for reports that the FBI warned its agents and informants could face violent retaliation, including possible assassination, if sensitive information from the records were made public. The FBI's filing, however, was a warning about the potential consequences of disclosure; it was not a statement that anyone had an existing plan to assassinate FBI personnel. 

Judge Howell subsequently received confidential material from the FBI for private, in-camera review, meaning the judge is examining the material without it being publicly released.

RELATED: 2027 election: Tinubu’s group seeks Ohanaeze, Anyaoku’s help to beg Peter Obi to step down

Tinubu has also intervened in the FOIA proceedings. His legal team has opposed further disclosure, arguing that the president retains privacy rights over information contained in the investigative records. Reports on the case have also linked the records to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000 that was forfeited to the US government. 

Importantly, the existence of FBI records or an investigation does not by itself establish that Tinubu committed a crime, was convicted of drug trafficking or will be prosecuted.

Tinubu has not been criminally charged in the United States over the allegations, and the current FOIA proceedings are primarily concerned with whether the US government must release records and what information can legally remain withheld.

The latest claim about possible post-presidency prosecution therefore remains the assessment of Von Batten-Montague-York rather than a confirmed decision by US prosecutors.

The firm has also been identified in reports as working for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, a political rival of Tinubu ahead of Nigeria's 2027 election, adding a political dimension to its public campaign over the release of the records. The Presidency has criticised the firm's activities as politically motivated. 

For now, the FBI and DEA have not publicly announced that Tinubu will be prosecuted after leaving office, while the disputed records remain partly withheld and subject to the US court's review.