President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a federal court in the United States to prevent the release of records held by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to past investigations and allegations of drug trafficking involving him.
The request forms part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking access to documents relating to investigations allegedly conducted by US law enforcement agencies into Tinubu during the 1990s.
Tinubu, through his legal representatives, has opposed the release of the records, arguing that disclosure could violate his privacy rights and expose information that is not currently part of the public record.
The case is before a federal court in Washington, D.C., where Greenspan has asked the court to compel the relevant US agencies to release documents covered by his FOIA requests.
Among the materials sought by Greenspan are records from the FBI’s files on Tinubu, including FBI Form 302 interview reports relating to the period between 1992 and 1993. The request also concerns documents allegedly associated with a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.
In a 16-page filing submitted to the court, Tinubu’s lawyers—Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi—argued that the requested records contain sensitive information that has not previously been made public.
The lawyers maintained that previous disclosures relating to the forfeiture proceeding did not amount to a public release of the broader investigative files now being sought by Greenspan.
According to the legal team, the fact that some information connected to a case may have entered the public domain does not automatically eliminate an individual’s privacy interest in the remaining government records.
They relied on previous decisions of the US Supreme Court and other federal courts to argue that individuals may retain privacy protections over details contained in government investigative files, even where portions of those records have previously been disclosed.
The lawyers also challenged what they described as Greenspan’s effort to obtain documents primarily because they contain Tinubu’s name.
They argued that a person’s name appearing in a government record does not, by itself, override exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act or protections provided under the US Privacy Act.
The filing therefore asked the court to reject Greenspan’s request for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain existing redactions or continue withholding documents covered by applicable legal exemptions.
The dispute is the latest development in a long-running effort by Greenspan to obtain US government records relating to Tinubu’s activities and dealings in the United States.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests, filed against several US government agencies, have sought records from the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), immigration authorities and other agencies.
The documents being sought relate, among other matters, to allegations concerning drug trafficking and investigations dating back to the 1980s and 1990s.
A central issue in the case is the status of records associated with the approximately $460,000 forfeiture proceeding. The money has been repeatedly referenced in public discussions concerning Tinubu’s history in the United States.
However, Tinubu’s legal team has argued that the existence of publicly known information about the forfeiture does not establish that the details contained in confidential investigative records should also be released.
The lawyers stressed that the requested documents could contain information gathered during investigations, including interviews, investigative leads and other material that may involve individuals who were not parties to the public proceedings.
They therefore urged the court to take into consideration the privacy interests of people whose names or information could appear in the records.
The case has attracted considerable attention because of Tinubu’s position as Nigeria’s sitting president and because the documents being sought concern events that allegedly occurred decades before he assumed the presidency.
The legal battle has also generated political interest in Nigeria, where Tinubu’s opponents have repeatedly called for greater transparency regarding his past activities in the United States.
Supporters of the president, however, have argued that allegations concerning events from decades ago should not be treated as established facts without evidence and due legal process.
The latest filing does not establish that Tinubu committed drug-related offences. Rather, it represents his legal objection to the release of government investigative records and his argument that those records are protected by privacy and other applicable legal provisions.
The FBI and DEA are also entitled to rely on exemptions under US law when responding to FOIA requests, particularly where disclosure could compromise protected personal information, confidential sources or ongoing or sensitive investigative material.
The court will ultimately determine whether the agencies have sufficiently justified withholding or redacting the records sought by Greenspan.
The proceedings have previously involved disputes over the pace at which the US agencies responded to the FOIA requests. Greenspan has sought judicial intervention to compel the release of documents, while the agencies have maintained that certain materials cannot be disclosed in full because of statutory exemptions.
The controversy also comes against the backdrop of earlier efforts by US agencies to review and potentially release portions of Tinubu-related records.
In 2023, reports indicated that the FBI had planned to release thousands of pages of documents concerning Tinubu in batches. The proposed disclosure became subject to further legal disputes and objections.
Tinubu’s latest court filing seeks to ensure that the FBI and DEA do not release the records covered by Greenspan’s requests unless the court determines that such disclosure is legally required.
For now, the records remain at the centre of a legal dispute over the balance between government transparency and individual privacy.
The case is particularly significant because a ruling compelling the release of the documents could provide new information about US government investigations involving Tinubu from the 1980s and 1990s. Conversely, a decision upholding the agencies’ withholdings would reinforce the privacy and statutory exemptions being relied upon by the president and the federal agencies.
Until the court rules on the matter, claims concerning the contents of the unreleased records remain allegations or matters of legal argument rather than established findings against the Nigerian president.
If you want, I can also give you a stronger newspaper-style headline and a more investigative version suitable for DailyBlastNG.
