 |
| Photo credit — President Bola Tinubu |
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a request for additional disclosure of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records related to him.
In an amended response filed on October 1, 2026, in the case Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), Tinubu’s lawyers urged the US District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold existing redactions and withholdings. They argued that the information is protected by privacy laws, including FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act.
American researcher and transparency activist Aaron Greenspan has sought records under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) concerning Tinubu and others in connection with federal investigations from the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Tinubu has denied any wrongdoing. The agencies have already produced thousands of pages of documents, some with redactions, along with a Vaughn index from the DEA identifying withheld material and the legal bases for those decisions.
Greenspan has expressed dissatisfaction with the production, noting in filings that he did not recall seeing the name “Tinubu” on the released pages, and has moved for summary judgment. Tinubu’s lawyers countered that FOIA primarily serves to inform the public about government activities rather than to disclose private information about individuals simply because agencies hold it. They cited the 1989 US Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which held that disclosure of records about private citizens may reveal little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.
RELATED ▶︎ United States court case on Tinubu’s past forfeiture is a civil matter not criminal
The lawyers maintained that the remaining information falls under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. They also invoked the Privacy Act as an additional ground for withholding or redacting personal details. “The DEA and FBI properly redacted or withheld exempt information from the responses to the requests,” the filing stated.
The submission also addressed an earlier court ruling on Glomar responses (agency refusals to confirm or deny the existence of records). In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell held that the FBI and DEA could not rely on Glomar responses in the circumstances of this case and ordered them to search for and process non-exempt records.
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that this ruling did not require the release of all content in any responsive files. They said the court distinguished between the question of whether an investigation occurred and the separate privacy interest in the specific contents of investigative files, which can still be protected through targeted redactions and withholdings.
They further rejected the claim that information tied to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding had fully entered the public domain in a way that eliminates privacy interests. The lawyers argued that the earlier proceeding did not disclose the details or results of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu. “Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor,” they wrote. Even where some information about an individual has become public, privacy interests can remain in other undisclosed material.
Tinubu’s current position as President of Nigeria does not eliminate privacy rights over records concerning events from approximately 1988 to 1991, the lawyers contended. “Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the amended filing states. They also argued that Greenspan had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing to overcome the privacy protections under the applicable balancing test.
Tinubu’s lawyers therefore asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and permit the FBI and DEA’s existing redactions and withholdings to stand.
This matter remains an ongoing civil dispute over access to government records under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal prosecution or judicial finding against Tinubu. Court outcomes on the redactions and any further releases will depend on the judge’s ruling.
(Source: Court filings as reported by Sahara Reporters and other outlets covering the docket.)
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Technology.
Post a Comment