When a president’s past refuses to stay buried

The current legal battle over President Bola Tinubu’s old records in the United States has raised a crucial question about leadership. The question is not whether Tinubu has a legal right to keep some of his old records private. The question is: What does a president owe the country beyond what the law requires?

That question has become inevitable again after Tinubu’s lawyers asked a US federal court to stop the release of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration records concerning him. The records are being sought by American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, in a Freedom of Information Act case that has been before Judge Beryl Howell since 2023. Tinubu is an intervenor in the case, and his lawyers have asked the court to reject Greenspan’s request and allow the redactions and withholding of the records to stand.

There is nothing wrong about a person defending his privacy in court. Tinubu is entitled to due process, and the fact that American law enforcement agencies have records concerning a person does not, by itself, establish that the person committed a crime. Similarly, the fact that some of those records are being withheld does not tell us what they contain. We should resist the temptation to fill those gaps with our imagination.

But presidents are different from ordinary citizens. Although they do not cease to have private lives, their public responsibilities are greater because their personal credibility is intertwined with the credibility of the office they occupy. And that is where Tinubu’s latest legal battle becomes politically and morally interesting.

This is not the first time Tinubu and his lawyers have fought attempts to obtain records about him. In 2023, when former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar went to a US court seeking discovery from Chicago State University for use in his Nigerian election challenge, Tinubu intervened in the case. When a magistrate judge ordered the university to produce the requested records, Tinubu sought a review and an emergency stay, arguing that the records were private, confidential and protected, and that the request amounted to a fishing expedition. The district court ultimately upheld the order and required the university to produce the records.

That episode is important because it answers one part of the question this article set out to investigate. Yes, Tinubu and his lawyers have previously gone to court to resist the disclosure of information about him. This is not something that began with the present FBI controversy.

But there is an important difference. In the Chicago State University case, Tinubu was defending his educational records against a political opponent seeking discovery for an election petition. The court recognised that educational records carry privacy interests but concluded that the circumstances justified disclosure. Tinubu’s lawyers were therefore not acting outside the law; they were exercising a legal right to contest the release of private information. The current case is more troubling because of what surrounds it.

The underlying American record dates to 1993, when the United States pursued a civil forfeiture action involving accounts associated with Tinubu and others. A US court ultimately ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 from an account in Tinubu’s name.

The court record stated that the government had alleged probable cause to believe the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in unlawful financial transactions. That is a documented court proceeding. It is not the same thing as a criminal conviction of Tinubu for drug trafficking.

Tinubu has not been convicted of drug trafficking in the US. Indeed, Nigeria’s Presidential Election Petition Court in 2023 rejected claims that he had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced for a criminal offence in the US. So, it would be wrong to turn the 1993 forfeiture proceeding into a declaration that the president is a convicted drug trafficker.

But the story did not end there. There have also been years of controversy over Tinubu’s educational records, the Chicago State University certificate, the NYSC certificate, the names appearing on various documents and other aspects of his biography. Some of these matters were litigated in court. Some allegations were rejected or not established. Others remain allegations. In 2023, for example, the Presidential Election Petition Court admitted Chicago State University, NYSC and Mobil records into evidence during the election challenge.

There is even a new suit filed in 2026 alleging certificate forgery and seeking Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 election. That is an allegation in a pending case, not a judicial finding. It should therefore be treated as such.

Put all this together, and one can see why the president’s past continues to generate questions. But one must also be careful not to manufacture a conspiracy out of every controversy surrounding a politician. A political opponent can have an obvious political motive and still uncover information that is genuinely relevant to the public. Conversely, a politically motivated request can also be intrusive or legally unjustified.

Tinubu’s lawyers say that is exactly what is happening in the FBI case. They argue that Greenspan’s real objective is to obtain government records containing Tinubu’s name and that the President retains a privacy interest in investigative material even where some information about the old forfeiture proceeding is already public. They have asked Judge Howell to reject Greenspan’s summary-judgment motion and permit the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholdings.

It doesn’t matter if they eventually win that argument. Winning a legal argument is not necessarily the same thing as answering a public question. “I have a legal right to keep this private” is not always the same statement as “keeping this private is good for the presidency”.

A president does not have to be a saint. We should stop pretending that people must have lived flawless lives before they can occupy public office. Presidents are human beings, with complicated histories, mistakes, relationships and private affairs. The law does not require perfection. But the presidency requires something more than legal compliance. It requires moral authority. And moral authority is fragile.

When a president’s name has repeatedly appeared in controversies involving disputed records, court battles and attempts to prevent the disclosure of information about his past, the public is entitled to wonder why. That does not mean the public is entitled to assume the worst. It means the occupant of the office should understand that uncertainty itself has consequences.

There is also an irony here that Tinubu’s lawyers cannot easily wish away. The harder a politician fights to keep a controversial matter from public view, the longer the matter can remain alive in the public imagination. Transparency can sometimes be painful, but secrecy can become its own form of publicity.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for privacy. Not everything in an FBI file should be made public merely because someone demands it. Investigative sources may need protection. Private individuals may have rights that should not disappear simply because they once crossed paths with a politician. Sensitive investigative techniques and genuinely personal information may deserve protection.

But where disclosure is legally possible, a president should perhaps ask a question that his lawyers do not have to ask: What would serve the country better? That is the moral burden of high office.

Tinubu’s lawyers are right that political opponents may be interested in these records for political reasons. But political motivation does not automatically erase public interest. If information concerns the character, history or conduct of the person occupying Nigeria’s highest political office, Nigerians may legitimately want to know what is in the public record. The answer should be determined by evidence and law, not by partisan loyalty.

Tinubu should, therefore, be judged neither as a convicted criminal nor as a spotless saint. He should be judged by the evidence, by the decisions of competent courts and by the standard we ought to demand of anyone who occupies the presidency.

The President has a right to defend his privacy. He also has a responsibility to protect the dignity and credibility of the office he occupies. Those two responsibilities can sometimes collide. When they do, the law tells a president what he may do. Leadership requires him to consider what he should do. And that is why the question is bigger than Bola Tinubu’s FBI records. What does a president owe the country beyond what the law requires?

By Azuka Onwuka