Details on Saturday emerged that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has filed a suit before a United States District Court seeking to block the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from releasing records linking him to alleged drug trafficking.
The records are being sought by American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against several US government agencies and who is also seeking documents relating to investigations into drug dealing allegedly involving Tinubu.
Greenspan’s FOI requests included the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records concerning the period between 1992 and 1993.
The case also involves an alleged record connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has, however consistently denied the allegations
According to the 16-page court documents seen by Impact Nigeria News Online on Saturday, Tinubu argued that the release of the records could infringe on his privacy.
He said submissions in that proceeding did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor, adding that, “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. (DE 85-3, No. 16)
“The purpose of the plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent.
“The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are “scattered” disclosures of information from that same file. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 764-67 (“our cases have recognised the privacy interests inherent in the non-disclosure of certain information even where the information may have been public at one time”).
“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed. Applying the Reporter’s Committee, this court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).
“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as “distinct” from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’”)
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by plaintiff,” the document read in part.
The document reads further: “Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of plaintiff’s overarching goal.
“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.
“If this court finds that plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.”
“Conclusion for all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the court denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand.”
However, it was gathered that the FBI has asked a federal court in Washington to keep portions of the records confidential, arguing that their disclosure could endanger lives and expose sensitive law-enforcement techniques.
In a filing dated August 20 which Impact Nigeria News sighted on Saturday, the FBI asked US District Judge Beryl Howell for permission to submit a confidential declaration for the court’s private review, rather than publicly disclose the full explanation for withholding some of the requested records.
The bureau invoked several exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act, arguing that disclosure of certain information could expose law-enforcement methods and potentially put individuals at risk.
According to the FBI, releasing some of the records could “endanger the life or physical safety of individuals” and reveal investigative techniques used by the bureau.
The FBI’s request represents the clearest response so far from a US law-enforcement agency to the renewed legal battle over the records.
The FBI’s latest position also followed an earlier ruling by Judge Howell directing the agencies to address the disclosure of the records after rejecting their reliance on a so-called “Glomar response”, under which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of requested records.
In April 2025, Howell ruled that the agencies could no longer rely on that response in the case, finding the position “neither logical nor plausible” given that investigations involving Tinubu had already been publicly acknowledged.
The judge subsequently allowed the FBI to submit sensitive material privately for judicial review before determining what, if anything, should be released publicly. The FBI, DOJ, DEA and Tinubu were given a deadline to oppose the release of the records.
