Tinubu asks US Court to reject bid for release of FBI, DEA records

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States court to reject a motion seeking the release of records relating to investigations allegedly involving him, arguing that the documents contain information protected by privacy provisions under U.S. law.

Tinubu, who joined the case as an intervenor, made the request in a response filed on Friday before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

He asked Judge Beryl Howell to dismiss American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to maintain redactions and withholdings contained in records already released.

Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, had filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records concerning Tinubu, including the “entire FBI file” on the Nigerian president and FBI interview records covering 1992 and 1993.

How the case started

The case arose from 12 FOIA requests submitted by Greenspan to six U.S. federal agencies for investigative records concerning a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.

Tinubu was among four individuals named in the requests.

In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA had improperly refused to confirm or deny whether they possessed records relating to Tinubu.

She subsequently ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.

The FBI and DEA later produced thousands of documents, some of which contained redactions, together with a Vaughn index explaining the basis for certain information withheld.

Greenspan subsequently asked the court to compel further disclosure, arguing that the documents released did not adequately satisfy his requests.

‘FOIA is not for private information’

In his latest court response, Tinubu argued that FOIA was designed to promote transparency about government activities and not to provide private information about individuals contained in government files.

“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining information the government collected about private individuals,” Tinubu’s lawyers argued.

According to the legal team, Greenspan’s requests primarily seek information about Tinubu rather than information that would shed light on the conduct or operations of the FBI, DEA or other government agencies.

The lawyers cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision which they said established that disclosure of government records concerning private citizens generally reveals little about government operations.

They further argued that portions of the records withheld by the FBI and DEA fall under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The lawyers also relied on protections contained in the U.S. Privacy Act.

According to the filing, the FBI and DEA “properly redacted or withheld exempt information” from the documents released to Greenspan.

Tinubu challenges ‘Glomar’ argument

Tinubu’s lawyers also rejected Greenspan’s argument that Judge Howell’s 2025 decision concerning the agencies’ initial “Glomar” responses had eliminated the President’s privacy interests in the contents of the investigative records.

A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether records responsive to a request exist.

The legal team argued that Howell’s earlier ruling distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in keeping confidential the fact that he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative files.

According to the lawyers, the 2025 ruling addressed the former issue but did not determine that the contents of the investigative records must subsequently be released.

They argued that the judge had specifically recognised that individual information within the records could still be protected through redactions and withholdings.

Tinubu’s lawyers also maintained that the fact that some information concerning his past had previously become public did not automatically remove his privacy rights over undisclosed details contained in government files.

Lawyers dispute public-interest argument

Tinubu’s legal team further challenged Greenspan’s argument that there was a public interest in releasing the records because Tinubu is the President of Nigeria.

The lawyers argued that public curiosity about Tinubu’s background, political career or suitability for office does not constitute the type of public interest recognised under FOIA.

“Plaintiff’s interest in an individual or that individual’s activities is not a ‘public interest’ that FOIA recognizes,” they argued.

According to the filing, Greenspan’s submissions demonstrate that his principal objective is obtaining information about Tinubu rather than examining whether the FBI, DEA or other U.S. agencies properly performed their duties.

The lawyers also rejected suggestions of a secret prosecution or government cover-up, describing such claims as “unsubstantiated allegations” that cannot justify disclosure of otherwise protected law-enforcement records.

They argued that Greenspan had not presented sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing.

Tinubu asks court to uphold redactions

The President’s legal team also opposed Greenspan’s challenges to the adequacy of the FBI’s search, the DEA’s Vaughn index, the agencies’ reliance on FOIA exemptions and their treatment of information that could potentially be segregated and released.

The lawyers argued that those issues should be considered in the context of what they described as Greenspan’s broader objective of obtaining documents containing Tinubu’s name.

“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,’” the filing states.

Tinubu is therefore asking the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the existing redactions and withholdings by the FBI and DEA to remain in place.

Records sought from six US agencies

Greenspan’s FOIA requests, filed in 2022 and 2023, sought records from the CIA, FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State.

The requests relate to investigative records concerning the Chicago drug-trafficking case and named Tinubu alongside Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

Several agencies initially issued Glomar responses, saying they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.

In her April 2025 ruling, however, Howell held that the FBI and DEA had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest to justify keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.

She ordered the two agencies to search for and process non-exempt records, while allowing the CIA to maintain its Glomar response.

Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing in relation to the allegations.