Long‑standing disputes over President Bola Tinubu’s Chicago State University diploma and a 1993 U.S. drug‑related forfeiture case are gaining new political relevance as fresh FOIA litigation in the United States forces federal agencies to revisit decades‑old records.
By Luka Binniyat
ABUJA, Nigeria — As Nigeria moves toward the 2027 presidential election, two long‑standing controversies involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have re‑entered the political arena: a dispute over the authenticity of the Chicago State University diploma he submitted to election authorities, and a decades‑old U.S. federal forfeiture case tied to a heroin‑trafficking investigation. Tinubu denies wrongdoing, but new developments in a U.S. Freedom of Information Act lawsuit—requiring the FBI and DEA to revisit sensitive records—have revived questions that opposition figures say voters deserve answers to.
The certificate controversy
The certificate controversy centres mainly on Tinubu’s education at Chicago State University (CSU) in Illinois. Tinubu has maintained that he graduated from the university in 1979.
After the 2023 election, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, and 2023 Presidential Candidate under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) went to a US federal court seeking access to Tinubu’s academic records. The case was brought under a US law that allows evidence to be obtained for use in proceedings in another country.
The US court records make clear that the purpose of the request included investigating the authenticity of the diploma Tinubu submitted to Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The controversy became more complicated when different documents connected with Tinubu’s diploma appeared to have differences in dates, formatting, seals, signatures and other details. Atiku’s lawyers specifically sought examples of CSU diplomas from 1979 and documents that could help establish whether the diploma submitted to INEC matched documents genuinely issued by the university.
A US court record says CSU had confirmed that Tinubu attended the university and received a degree in 1979.
At the same time, CSU Registrar Caleb Westberg was questioned about whether the university could authenticate the particular June 22, 1979 diploma that had been submitted to INEC.
The US proceedings did not establish that Tinubu never attended CSU. Rather, the dispute included the narrower question of whether the particular diploma presented to INEC could be authenticated by CSU.
The evidence later became part of the political and legal battle in Nigeria.
Atiku sought to introduce the US material in his challenge to Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 presidential election.
The Nigerian Supreme Court ultimately upheld Tinubu’s election and did not cancel the result because of the certificate controversy.
The American drug-trafficking allegation
The second controversy comes from a 1993 US federal forfeiture case in Chicago. US authorities were investigating a heroin-distribution organisation and money laundering in the Chicago area. During the investigation, money in several bank accounts associated with Bola Tinubu and other people was seized.
A government affidavit by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss is central to the later controversy. The affidavit stated that there was probable cause to believe that funds in certain accounts controlled by Tinubu were involved in financial transactions that violated US money-laundering laws and represented proceeds of drug trafficking.
A later US court proceeding examining the FBI and DEA’s handling of records quoted and discussed the Moss affidavit.
On October 4, 1993, the US court ordered that $460,000 held in a First Heritage Bank account in Tinubu’s name be forfeited to the United States. The decree stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or had been involved in financial transactions prohibited by US law.
According to Elija Usman (Esq) of Usman and Partners Law Firm, Kaduna, Tinubu did not face a criminal trial in got convicted of trafficking heroin.
“Tinubu has not been criminally convicted of drug trafficking in the United States. This is a very important distinction that must be observed,” he told our correspondent.
“It’s obvious that President Bola Tinubu is hiding behind a legal lacuna over his alleged drugs deals,” countered Sani K. Ahmed, a Legal Practioner and Secretary, “Reclaim Nigeria 2027.”
“The fact that money traced to him was linked to heroin trafficking should shame him into contesting in 2023. If Nigeria has any moral credibility, no one should vote for him in 2027,” he said.
Tinubu’s political allies have however continued to dispute the interpretation of the forfeiture. They have argued that the proceeding concerned funds rather than a criminal charge against Tinubu personally, and have offered explanations concerning the origin of the money.
The FOIA case brings the issue back
The most important new development is that the US government’s old investigation has not completely disappeared.
It could be recalled that in 2022 and 2023, American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records from the FBI, DEA and other US agencies concerning investigations involving Tinubu and others.
A US federal judge later ruled that the FBI and DEA could not simply refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records in the way they had initially done. The case has since moved into a new dispute over which records can legally be released.
The latest development in August 2026 is especially significant. The FBI told a US federal court that some information was being withheld under exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. The agency said disclosure could reveal law-enforcement techniques and, in some circumstances, “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
The FBI has asked to explain some of its reasons privately to the judge, through a confidential filing. It means that the FBI says some information is protected under FOIA and that publicly explaining the reasons could itself undermine the protection.
It is crucial to note that FOIA case was initiated by Greenspan, not by Tinubu’s political arch-rival – Atiku who is now the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
However, the matter has acquired a new political dimension because Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, recently hired by Atiku, has been publicly drawing attention to the case and urging disclosure.
Atiku has now publicly called for the release of records where legally permissible, arguing that Nigerian voters have a right to information about the history and character of a presidential candidate.
What could this mean for 2027?
“The new FOIA dispute adds another layer,” notes Ester Boman, a political analyst and member of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
“If additional records are released and contain genuinely new information, the issue could become much more powerful campaign tool against the president during the 2027 campaign,” she said
“If the records contain little beyond what is already known, it’s going to be sweet to us,” she said.
Luka Binniyat writes on Politics and Conflict for TruthNigeria from Kaduna.
