Bola Ahmed Tinubu

The US Attorney filed a verified complaint for civil forfeiture on 26 July 1993 against funds in one First Heritage Bank account and several Citibank accounts held in Tinubu's name. It was supported by an affidavit of IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent Kevin Moss, which alleged probable cause that the funds were proceeds of heroin trafficking or were involved in money-laundering transactions (18 U.S.C. 1956/1957). Tinubu contested the seizure. On 15 September 1993 a stipulation and an order were entered. The case was terminated on 4 October 1993 with a further order. The Federal Judicial Center record for the case shows judgment for the plaintiff (the United States), disposition 'other' and an amount received of 460 (thousand dollars). Per contemporaneous and later reporting, the settlement forfeited $460,000 and released the rest of the money. This was a civil action against property. No criminal charge was filed against Tinubu and there was no conviction. The Presidential Election Petition Court held in 2023 that the case did not disqualify him (see 'obi-petition-2023' and 'atiku-petition-2023'). Tinubu's position, through his campaign in 2022 and his lawyers in 2023: the case was civil, he was never charged, tried or convicted, and the compromise was made without admitting any drug-related wrongdoing.

IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss's affidavit (dated 20 July 1993) described an investigation, begun before and during 1988, into a white-heroin network in Chicago and Hammond, Indiana, linked to Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Lee Andrew Edwards. It stated there was probable cause that funds in accounts controlled by Tinubu were involved in money laundering and were drug proceeds. The accounts were frozen in January 1992, and the government brought the 1993 civil forfeiture, which settled for $460,000 (see 'us-v-funds-first-heritage-1993'). No criminal charge against Tinubu was filed. A 4 February 2003 US Embassy letter to the Nigeria Police reported no FBI NCIC arrest records, wants or warrants for him. In April 2025 a US federal judge held that DOJ had officially acknowledged, through the 1993 complaint, that Tinubu was criminally investigated in an investigation involving the FBI and DEA. Tinubu's position is that he was never charged or convicted and that the money was legitimate. He is fighting disclosure of the investigative files (see 'greenspan-v-eousa-foia-2023').

A petition dated 12 August 1999 in the names of Jameed Seriki and Waliu Balogun-Smith made three allegations. First, that his age was inconsistent: 1952 in his profile, 1954 on his Chicago State University transcript. Second, that he had not attended Government College, Ibadan. Third, that he had not attended the University of Chicago, as claimed in INEC Form CF001 and a 29 December 1998 affidavit. Speaker Olorunimbe Mamora set up the committee on 21 September 1999. It found the petitioners' addresses fictitious. Tinubu testified on 23 September with Femi Falana as counsel. He accepted 'full responsibility' for 'needless errors', saying aide Tokunbo Afikuyomi had filled in the forms; Afikuyomi confirmed this on 24 September. Gani Fawehinmi told the committee Tinubu had given false information on oath. The committee found no perjury, because the statements were not made for judicial proceedings. It found the incorrect statements conferred no advantage, since he met the age and education requirements, and that there was no evidence any forged document went to INEC. The only certificate submitted was a genuine CSU transcript. It advised him to be more careful with documents he signs. No impeachment followed. Critics, such as a 2022 Vanguard analysis, say he 'survived' because the AD-dominated Assembly protected him. The date the committee reported was not found.

After the 1999 certificate and age allegations (see investigation 'lagos-assembly-adhoc-committee-1999'), Chief Gani Fawehinmi sued at the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking an order compelling the police to investigate Governor Tinubu for alleged false statements on oath. The case reached the Supreme Court. On 10 May 2002 the Court held, per Ogundare JSC, that section 308 of the 1999 Constitution does not give a sitting governor immunity from police investigation. It also held that the police have a discretion whether to investigate, and the courts will not interfere where that discretion is properly exercised. Fawehinmi did not obtain an order compelling the police to investigate. There was no finding on the merits of the perjury allegation.

Per allAfrica, the Federal Government brought Tinubu before the Code of Conduct Tribunal on 24 April 2007, while he was still governor, over 16 alleged foreign accounts. The matter stalled until the Code of Conduct Bureau served a summons dated 6 September 2011. The prosecution replaced the earlier one-count charge with an amended charge dated 19 September and filed 20 September 2011; reports call it a three-count charge. Tinubu appeared voluntarily and challenged the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction and the charge. On 30 November 2011 the Tribunal dismissed the case. It rejected his argument that the Tribunal had to sit in Lagos. It held that the Bureau had not met the condition precedent of inviting him to admit or deny the allegations in writing, and that filing the amended charge without leave was an abuse of process. It also found that the charge disclosed no prima facie case, noting that some of the accounts were in other people's names. Tinubu called the prosecution politically motivated. Former AGF Mohammed Adoke later said he talked the government out of appealing. Tribunal chairman Umar said in 2016 that the tribunal was 'under serious influence' during the trial. No appeal was pursued.

The EFCC alleged that the 2004 sale of the three states' V-Mobile shares through ADFI was not transparent and amounted to conspiracy and money laundering, and it filed a case at an Ikeja High Court. Per the three ex-governors, the EFCC withdrew the case because no prima facie case was established. The Federal Government says the EFCC cleared them in January 2009. On 22 June 2009 the UK Metropolitan Police sent a mutual legal assistance request for evidence to support prosecution in London. On 9 September 2009 Attorney-General Michael Aondoakaa announced he had refused it, citing the EFCC's clearance and arguing any prosecution belonged in Nigeria. Tinubu said he had no direct dealing with Econet, that the state had invested through Ibile Holdings, and called the revival 'sheer blackmail'. No UK charge against Tinubu was found.

Per Sahara Reporters (2011), the JTF found that 15 governors, including Tinubu, had breached constitutional asset-declaration rules. In Tinubu's case the finding concerned the operation of foreign accounts in his name and that of Compass Finance and Investment Ltd. The Federal Government filed a Code of Conduct Tribunal charge in April 2007. It was revived in 2011 and dismissed on 30 November 2011 (see 'cct-foreign-accounts-2007-2011'). Tinubu's counsel argued in 2011 that the other indicted governors were invited to explain themselves and not prosecuted, while he alone was charged. Tinubu called the case politically motivated.

AIT began airing the documentary on 1 March 2015. It portrayed Tinubu as 'Nigeria's biggest landlord' and claimed he was 'charged for narcotics' in the US in 1993. Tinubu demanded a retraction and N20 billion, then sued on 5 March 2015 for N150 billion in libel damages. The court granted an ex parte restraining order about 11 days later and an interlocutory injunction on 1 April 2015. AIT's counsel, Mike Ozekhome, argued that the content was fact already in the public domain. On 5 February 2016 both sides told the court they had settled. The judge adopted settlement terms dated 29 January 2016 and ordered Daar Communications to retract the documentary and apologise publicly. Tinubu won an apology and retraction; no damages award was reported.

Nwajiuba, who lost the June 2022 APC presidential primary, sued to void the primaries that produced Tinubu and Atiku, and to have himself declared the APC candidate. Premium Times says his ground was that Tinubu and Atiku did not disclose the sources of the money for their nomination forms. On 15 December 2022 Justice Inyang Ekwo dismissed FHC/ABJ/CS/942/2022 for lack of locus standi and ordered the dissolution of the co-plaintiff NGO. Premium Times separately reports that Justice Z.B. Abubakar dismissed a Nwajiuba suit as statute-barred on 23 November 2022, and that the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on 15 February 2023 with N1 million costs. On 30 March 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal after Nwajiuba's counsel withdrew it. Tinubu (through Babatunde Ogala SAN) opposed the suit as statute-barred and won at every level.

The PDP argued that Shettima was still the APC's Borno Central senatorial candidate when he was nominated as running mate, which it said invalidated the Tinubu/Shettima ticket. On 13 January 2023 the Federal High Court dismissed the suit because the PDP lacked locus standi to challenge another party's nomination. The Court of Appeal affirmed on 24 March 2023. On 26 May 2023 a five-justice Supreme Court panel led by Inyang Okoro dismissed the final appeal (lead judgment by Adamu Jauro). It held that no party can challenge another party's nomination, that the suit was statute-barred, and that the appeal was frivolous. It awarded N2 million costs against the PDP, three days before Tinubu's inauguration. The same double-nomination point later failed in the APM and Obi petitions.

Obi's grounds included that Tinubu was not qualified because of the 1993 US forfeiture, which Obi described as a $460,000 fine for narcotics trafficking in Case No. 93C 4483. He also relied on Shettima's alleged double nomination, the failure to upload results to IReV in real time, and Tinubu's failure to win 25% of the FCT vote. On 6 September 2023 the five-member PEPC dismissed the petition. It held that the US forfeiture judgment was made in civil proceedings to which Tinubu was not a party and did not disqualify him. It called the FCT 25% argument 'completely fallacious' and found no law requiring electronic transmission of results. About 10 of Obi's 13 witnesses were struck out because their statements were filed late. Obi appealed on 50 grounds. On 26 October 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: it raised substantially the same issues as Atiku's, and double nomination could not be relitigated. Tinubu was the second respondent.

Atiku challenged Tinubu's qualification on several grounds: the US forfeiture, the Chicago State University certificate and Guinean citizenship. He also argued the FCT 25% point and alleged substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act. On 6 September 2023 the PEPC, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, dismissed the petition together with the Obi and APM petitions. It resolved the forfeiture issue in Tinubu's favour. On 26 October 2023 the seven-member Supreme Court panel, led by Justice John Inyang Okoro, unanimously dismissed the appeal. It also refused Atiku's motion to adduce fresh Chicago State University evidence obtained through the US §1782 case (see 'abubakar-v-csu-1782-2023'). It made no finding on whether the certificate was authentic. Tinubu was the second respondent and the election was upheld.

The applicants asked the court to stop Tinubu's 29 May 2023 inauguration. Tinubu (through Lateef Fagbemi SAN) and the APC applied orally for dismissal. On 26 May 2023 Justice Omotosho held that the applicants, who were neither candidates nor party members, lacked locus standi. He also held that the complaint was a post-election matter for the election court. He called the suit frivolous and vexatious and ordered the applicants to pay N10 million to Tinubu and N5 million to the APC, and their lawyer N1 million to each.

Pending. Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, sued under FOIA for records of the early-1990s FBI/DEA/IRS investigation of a Chicago heroin ring. His requests named Tinubu, Abiodun Agbele, Mueez Akande and Lee Andrew Edwards. Tinubu moved to intervene on 23 October 2023, and the court granted it on 27 November 2023 to protect his privacy interests. EOUSA, State and IRS were dismissed by stipulation on 13 August 2024. On 8 April 2025 Judge Howell held that the FBI's and DEA's 'Glomar' responses (refusing to confirm or deny records exist) were improper and must be lifted, because DOJ's 1993 forfeiture complaint had already acknowledged the investigation. The CIA's Glomar response was upheld. On 15 October 2025 she denied both Greenspan's motion to compel and Tinubu's motion to confirm that FOIA exemptions apply, calling the latter premature. DEA made productions in 2025. The FBI's productions slipped repeatedly, and on 3 February 2026 the court ordered a schedule. Greenspan's second summary-judgment motion (25 June 2026) challenges the redactions and withholdings. Tinubu responded on 28 August 2026, arguing that FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and his privacy interest bar release and that FOIA recognises no public interest in his fitness for office. FBI/DEA cross-moved the same day. On 9 September 2026 Greenspan moved for discovery against Tinubu and the lobbying firm DCI Group. Defendants' reply was due 23 September 2026. No decision on the merits of disclosure yet.

Atiku applied under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for Chicago State University records and a deposition, for use in his Nigerian appeal. Tinubu moved to intervene on 3 August 2023, and his unopposed motion was granted on 7 August. He opposed the application and objected to the magistrate judge's 19 September grant. On 30 September 2023 Judge Maldonado overruled his objections and entered judgment for Atiku, expressing 'no view on the merits' of the claims about Tinubu's graduation. CSU released 32 documents on 2 October and was deposed on 3 October. No Seventh Circuit appeal was found. The Nigerian Supreme Court later refused to admit the evidence (see 'atiku-petition-2023').

The APM argued that the APC had not validly sponsored Tinubu, because Kabir Masari was nominated as a placeholder running mate and later replaced by Shettima, who it said was still a senatorial candidate. It opened and closed its case with one witness on 21 June 2023. The PEPC dismissed the petition on 6 September 2023, relying on the Supreme Court's 26 May 2023 decision in the PDP double-nomination case. Per PLAC, the court held that qualification issues arising before an election must be brought as pre-election matters. At the Supreme Court on 23 October 2023 the bench pressed APM's counsel over the futility of the appeal; he withdrew it, and it was dismissed.

Pending. The plaintiff alleges that Tinubu gave INEC forged Chicago State University and NYSC certificates. It asks the court to disqualify him from the 2027 election under section 137(1)(j), to restrain INEC from accepting his nomination, and to order CSU to strike his name from its records. It relies on records from the 2023 US discovery case. The plaintiff's head of legal, Kalu Kalu Agu, says the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court transferred the case from Kano to Abuja on an application by Tinubu's lawyers. The plaintiff opposes the transfer. As of the 30 June 2026 report the defendants had not filed responses. Tinubu has denied presenting any forged certificate (see 'atiku-adc-v-tinubu-2026').

Pending. The plaintiffs invoke sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the Constitution. They allege that the NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC, bearing the name 'Tinubu Bola Adekunle', is forged. They seek Tinubu's and the APC's disqualification from the 2027 election and an order compelling INEC to produce his Form CF001 for 2023 and 2027. On 1 September 2026 Tinubu's counsel offered to accept service, but the plaintiffs declined. Tinubu and the APC jointly filed a counter-affidavit denying that any forged certificate was submitted for 2023 or 2027. INEC says the plaintiffs lack locus standi and that the suit is an abuse of process. Per the APC, Tinubu's lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun SAN, filed a preliminary objection on 14 September and a defence on 15 September 2026. On 16 September the court nevertheless granted substituted service through the APC secretariat. The APC's 22 September letter calls that order unnecessary. The suit was fixed for mention on 28 September 2026 (today). No ruling on the merits. Tinubu and the APC deny that any forged certificate was submitted.

In a ThisDay interview reported on 21 June 2021, Bawa said the EFCC was investigating Tinubu and had requested his asset declaration form. The subject of the probe was not stated; contemporary coverage links it to allegations over Alpha Beta Consulting and Lagos revenue. Attorney-General Abubakar Malami had said his office had no plans to investigate Tinubu. No charge, finding or closure was announced. Separately, a former managing director of Alpha Beta Consulting, a Lagos revenue consultant, alleged in an October 2020 Lagos High Court suit that the firm is controlled by Tinubu through nominees; Alpha Beta and Tinubu deny it, and the allegation has not been adjudicated. Some coverage links the EFCC inquiry to that allegation.