President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a request by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan seeking the release of additional records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to him.
Tinubu, through his lawyers, urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold the agencies’ redactions and withholding of information, arguing that the disputed material is protected by privacy provisions contained in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.
The request was contained in an amended response filed on October 1, 2026, in the case of Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).
The case is a civil FOIA dispute over access to government records. It is not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu, and the court has not found him guilty of criminal wrongdoing. (Justia Law)
Greenspan had asked the court to compel the release of records he requested from U.S. government agencies concerning Tinubu and other individuals. His requests relate to records associated with a federal investigation from the early 1990s involving alleged drug trafficking and money laundering. (Justia Law)
Tinubu’s lawyers said the FBI and DEA had already produced thousands of pages of documents in response to Greenspan’s requests, although portions of the records were redacted. They also noted that the DEA had provided a Vaughn index, a document that identifies materials withheld by an agency and the legal exemptions relied upon for the withholding.
According to the lawyers, Greenspan remained dissatisfied with the agencies’ production and subsequently asked the court to grant him summary judgment.
The filing said Greenspan had complained that he could not recall seeing the word “Tinubu” on a single page of the documents released by the government.
Tinubu’s legal team, however, argued that such an expectation misunderstands the purpose of FOIA. They maintained that the law is principally intended to provide the public with information about the activities of government agencies rather than expose private information about individuals merely because government authorities possess records concerning them.
The lawyers relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent concerning personal privacy under FOIA and argued that disclosure of information about private individuals may reveal “little or nothing” about an agency’s own conduct.
They maintained that the remaining information sought by Greenspan falls within FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The lawyers also cited the Privacy Act as an additional legal basis for protecting personal information.
“The DEA and FBI properly redacted or withheld exempt information from the responses to the requests,” the lawyers argued.
The filing also addressed the court’s earlier consideration of the so-called “Glomar response”. Under this doctrine, a government agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist when acknowledging their existence or non-existence would itself disclose information protected under FOIA.
In an April 8, 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell held that the FBI and DEA could not rely on Glomar responses in the circumstances then before the court. She directed the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the 2025 ruling did not require the agencies to release every piece of information contained in responsive investigative files.
According to their argument, the court had distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in whether he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative records.
They argued that while the first issue had been addressed through the Glomar analysis, the court had not ruled that every detail contained in investigative records was automatically subject to disclosure.
The lawyers further rejected Greenspan’s contention that information connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding had already entered the public domain.
They argued that the earlier proceeding did not reveal the details or outcome of any alleged criminal investigation involving Tinubu and said that publicly available information should not automatically eliminate privacy protections for separate, undisclosed records.
Tinubu’s lawyers also maintained that his current position as President of Nigeria does not remove his privacy interests in records concerning events dating back several decades.
“Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the filing stated, referring to Tinubu’s status at the time of the events in question.
The lawyers said the records sought by Greenspan concern events dating approximately from 1988 to 1991 and argued that Tinubu’s subsequent election to public office should not, by itself, eliminate privacy protections attached to those records.
They also contended that Greenspan had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of government misconduct that would outweigh the privacy interests protected under FOIA.
Greenspan, an American researcher and technology expert who founded the legal transparency platform PlainSite, has pursued the records through a series of FOIA requests and court filings. His requests include records relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation and a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 that he says was linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
In their latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers asked Judge Howell to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain the redactions and withholdings they have made under applicable privacy and law-enforcement exemptions.
The dispute therefore remains focused on the scope of disclosure permitted under U.S. transparency law, particularly where government records contain information that may implicate an individual’s privacy rights.
