A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and member of President Bola Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, Wole Afolabi, has argued that the President would have been indicted, arrested and prosecuted if there were evidence linking him to drug trafficking in the United States.
Afolabi made the submission during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, while responding to questions about the ongoing legal battle over the release of records held by the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
The records are the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking access to documents relating to Tinubu and past investigations.
The lawyer said the US government had already released thousands of pages of records but was seeking to keep some portions redacted, arguing that disclosure could compromise law enforcement methods, sources and agents.
According to Afolabi, the decision by Tinubu’s legal team to challenge the release of the redacted portions was based on rights available under US law and did not amount to an attempt to conceal incriminating information.
“This matter has been going on for quite some time, as you rightly said, and the DEA and other government agencies have produced documents and made available to Mr Greenspan.
“Now Mr Greenspan is asking that documents should be unredacted before they are handed over to him. The way the system works is this: it’s not what you want, it’s what the law stipulates.
“So precisely what we are doing is going under the coverage of the law. It’s what the law gives us the right to do. It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers,” he said.
Afolabi also dismissed the suggestion that the US government was withholding the records specifically to protect Tinubu.
He said a recent filing by the Department of Justice focused on protecting the methods used to gather information and the identities of sources and agents.
“In one of the recent filings that was made recently by the Department of Justice, it was stated in the footnote at page 24 that their concern is about the methodology by which information is gathered.
“No mention was made of any protection being offered to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu,” he said.
‘If there was evidence, Tinubu would have been indicted’
Afolabi argued that drug trafficking was treated as a serious offence by US authorities and questioned why Tinubu would have been allowed to enter and leave the country without being arrested or prosecuted if there had been sufficient evidence against him.
He cited the cases of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega and former British Virgin Islands Premier Andrew Fahie as examples of individuals who faced prosecution over alleged drug-related offences.
He also referred to US action against Venezuelan officials and extradition cases involving Nigerians accused of drug trafficking.
“So the question that should be asked reasonably is this: what’s so special about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that he would be coming into America and leaving America without being arrested, detained or interviewed for anything?” he asked.
Afolabi said the absence of an indictment against Tinubu was significant, stressing that the principle of presumption of innocence also applied.
Asked directly whether he was saying Tinubu had never taken drugs, had never been caught with heroin and had never been involved in drug trafficking, Afolabi responded that he was relying on the evidence available.
“What the evidence shows,” he said.
The lawyer was also questioned about the $460,000 that was forfeited to the US authorities in the 1990s and the circumstances surrounding the civil forfeiture proceeding.
Afolabi maintained that a civil forfeiture did not mean that Tinubu had been found criminally culpable.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” he said.
He, however, declined to disclose details of Tinubu’s account of the matter, citing lawyer-client confidentiality.
“I’m acting as his lawyer, and as a lawyer, there is what you call attorney-client privilege, and it’s taken very seriously over here. One can lose one’s licence very easily.
“Unfortunately, I can’t divulge any information that my client had disclosed to me confidentially. I’m sorry,” he said.
Why Tinubu wants some records withheld
The interview also focused on why Tinubu’s legal team was opposing the release of portions of the records if, as Afolabi maintained, they contained no incriminating evidence against the President.
Afolabi said the…
Read More: Tinubu US Allegations: Lawyer Explains Why President Hasn’t