Special Counsel to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, has said records relating to allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States will be disclosed, but some sensitive portions are likely to be withheld.
Ejimakor said only information considered to have little or no political value would be made public, following a recent development in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, case in the United States.
He made the statement on Tuesday while reacting to a decision by a US federal court allowing an ex parte review of sensitive records relating to Tinubu.
An ex parte review is a process in which a judge considers information privately, usually without the other party being present. It is often used where revealing the material or even allowing the opposing side to examine it could affect protected interests.
Ejimakor said the decision was significant because it showed that the records being considered by the court contained information the US authorities believed required special protection.
He argued, however, that the development did not mean the entire records would remain secret.
According to him, information that does not fall under protected categories could still be released to the public, while sensitive sections could be removed or redacted.
Ejimakor said the public should therefore expect a disclosure that could contain both information released in full and portions withheld by the authorities.
His comments followed an application by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for the court to conduct an ex parte review of certain records connected to Tinubu.
The case is part of a wider legal effort to obtain government records under the US FOIA, a law that generally allows members of the public to request records held by federal agencies.
However, the law also contains exemptions that allow agencies to withhold certain information. These exemptions can cover sensitive law enforcement material, personal information, national security matters and other protected records.
Ejimakor said the FBI’s request for a private review raised an additional issue because even explaining publicly why particular information needed protection could itself expose or compromise the interests the government was trying to protect.
He said the situation demonstrated why the court had agreed to examine the sensitive records privately before deciding what could be released.
“The FBI’s request for an ex parte review highlights the additional issue that public justification itself could compromise these protected interests,” Ejimakor said.
The dispute over the records has attracted attention because of previous allegations concerning Tinubu’s activities in the United States.
The Nigerian President has faced political controversies over his past in the US, including questions raised by political opponents about court documents and records connected to him.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing, while his supporters have argued that political opponents have used old allegations and documents to attack his reputation.
The issue has remained part of Nigeria’s political debate, particularly since Tinubu emerged as the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress and later won the 2023 presidential election.
The US records have also featured in legal and political discussions involving Nigerian opposition figures and activists seeking information about the President’s past.
FOIA requests have become one of the routes through which researchers, journalists, activists and members of the public seek access to records held by US government agencies.
Such requests, however, do not guarantee that all requested documents will be released. US agencies can invoke specific exemptions where they believe disclosure could harm an individual’s privacy, interfere with law enforcement or expose other protected information.
Where a dispute arises over withheld records, courts can be asked to determine whether the government’s decision is justified.
In some cases, judges can review disputed material privately before deciding whether the information should remain withheld or whether some or all of it should be released.
That appears to be the stage reached in the matter involving the records relating to Tinubu.
Ejimakor’s comments suggest that the outcome may not be an all-or-nothing disclosure.
Instead, the eventual records could contain information made available to the public alongside sections that have been blacked out or removed.
Redaction is common in the release of government documents when authorities want to provide public access while protecting information covered by law.
The special counsel also suggested that political significance would be a factor in determining what information the public would be able to see.
He said details with little or no political value would be disclosed, while more sensitive information could remain protected.
The development comes at a time when political disagreements in Nigeria are already intensifying ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Tinubu is seeking to consolidate his administration’s political support, while opposition parties and political figures are increasingly scrutinising his record and background.
Issues concerning the President’s past are therefore likely to continue featuring in political debates as parties prepare for the next election.
However, the court’s decision does not amount to a finding that Tinubu committed any offence. It concerns access to government records and whether particular information should be disclosed under US law.
The distinction is important because a request for records, a court review of documents and the eventual release of information do not by themselves establish criminal wrongdoing.
The ongoing case is expected to determine which parts of the requested records can legally be made public.
For now, Ejimakor’s position is that the public should expect some disclosure but not necessarily the release of the complete records.
He maintained that some information could be withheld where its disclosure would compromise legally protected interests.
The court’s eventual decision could therefore determine how much information becomes available to the public and what details remain protected.