President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to prevent the release of records held by American law enforcement agencies concerning historical investigations linked to him.
The request was contained in a 16-page court filing submitted on August 28, 2026, before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Tinubu's legal team is opposing efforts by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain records from the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) through the Freedom of Information Act, commonly known as FOIA.
The documents being sought relate largely to investigations from the early 1990s and a 1993 civil forfeiture case involving about $460,000 in funds linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing in connection with the matter.
Greenspan has been pursuing the records through a FOIA lawsuit filed against several US government agencies.
Among the documents he is seeking are what he describes as the FBI's complete file relating to Tinubu, including FBI Form 302 interview records covering 1992 and 1993.
Form 302 records are reports prepared by FBI agents to document interviews conducted during investigations.
The request also covers documents connected to the 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The dispute has continued for several years and has already produced significant rulings from the US court.
The records at the centre of the dispute date back more than three decades.
At the time, US authorities were investigating alleged drug-trafficking and money-laundering activities involving people in the Chicago area.
Approximately $460,000 held in accounts associated with Tinubu was forfeited to the US government in a civil proceeding.
It is important to distinguish a civil forfeiture case from a criminal conviction.
The forfeiture proceeding was a case against the money or property involved, rather than a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction against Tinubu. Tinubu was not criminally convicted in connection with the matter and has denied wrongdoing.
The distinction has become an important part of the current legal argument.
Tinubu's lawyers argue that the fact that some information about the old case has already entered the public domain does not mean that every document held by US law enforcement agencies should automatically be released.
According to the filing, the President still has a privacy interest in the contents of investigative files, including information that may not previously have been made public.
His lawyers argue that publicly available references to the forfeiture case do not necessarily reveal the details, findings or outcome of any possible criminal investigation.
They also argue that a person's privacy rights can remain applicable even where limited information about an investigation has previously been disclosed.
The legal team is asking the court to allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholdings where permitted under US law.
The Freedom of Information Act gives members of the public a legal avenue to request records held by US federal agencies.
However, the law contains several exemptions that allow government agencies to withhold certain information.
One of those provisions, Exemption 7(C), deals with personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
Tinubu's lawyers are relying in part on this privacy protection, arguing that the government should not be compelled to release investigative material simply because the records concern a public figure.
They also refer to protections under the US Privacy Act.
Greenspan, on the other hand, argues that there is a strong public interest in the release of records concerning a sitting Nigerian president and that the agencies have not adequately justified withholding the material.
The latest filing comes after an earlier ruling that went against the US agencies' attempt to keep the existence of some records secret.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell rejected the FBI and DEA's use of what is known as a “Glomar” response.
A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether it possesses particular records when acknowledging their existence could itself cause harm.
Judge Howell found that such a response was not justified in this case because the fact that Tinubu had been investigated had already been acknowledged.
The court therefore ordered the agencies to process responsive records while still allowing them to withhold information that genuinely qualifies for protection under FOIA exemptions.
That earlier ruling did not mean that every document concerning Tinubu had to be released without redactions. Rather, it required the agencies to properly justify their withholding of specific information.
The FBI has separately asked the court for permission to provide a confidential explanation for why some of the requested records should remain withheld.
Such a declaration would be reviewed privately by the judge rather than made available to the public.
The bureau has argued that certain information could involve sensitive law-enforcement methods or, in some circumstances, information relating to the safety of individuals.
The court will ultimately determine which portions of the records can lawfully remain confidential and which, if any, must be released.
In the latest filing, Tinubu's lawyers also challenged what they described as Greenspan's focus on obtaining documents containing the President's name.
They argued that FOIA should not be used simply to search government files for information about a particular individual where the material is otherwise protected by privacy or law-enforcement exemptions.
The lawyers asked the court to reject Greenspan's request for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA's existing redactions and withholdings to remain in place.
A summary judgment is a request for the court to resolve a case, or part of it, without a full trial because the relevant facts are considered sufficiently established.
The allegations surrounding the old investigation have resurfaced several times in Nigerian political debates, particularly since Tinubu's emergence as a major political figure.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing connected with the US forfeiture proceeding.
His position has been that the 1993 matter was a civil forfeiture case involving funds and did not amount to a criminal conviction against him.
During Nigeria's 2023 presidential election litigation, questions surrounding the old US case were also raised by political opponents.
Nigeria's Presidential Election Petition Court ultimately rejected the challenges against Tinubu's election, including arguments relating to his alleged criminal conviction. The court found that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been convicted of a criminal offence.
The renewed legal battle has attracted attention because Tinubu is now Nigeria's sitting President.
Greenspan and other transparency advocates argue that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what US government records contain about investigations involving a serving Nigerian president.
Tinubu's legal team takes the opposite position, arguing that being a public official does not automatically eliminate an individual's privacy rights, particularly where the records concern decades-old investigations and information that may involve third parties.
The dispute therefore raises a broader question under US freedom-of-information law: How should courts balance the public's right to government records against an individual's right to privacy in law-enforcement files?
The US District Court for the District of Columbia will have to consider the arguments from Greenspan, the federal agencies and Tinubu's legal team before determining what records can be released.
The court may allow some documents to be disclosed while permitting sensitive portions to remain redacted.
It is also possible that further appeals or legal challenges could follow depending on the court's eventual decision.
For now, the filing by Tinubu's lawyers does not establish that the allegations against him are true or false. It is a legal effort to prevent or limit the public release of historical US government records.
Likewise, any eventual release of FBI or DEA documents would not automatically amount to a criminal conviction or judicial finding against Tinubu. The contents of those records would need to be examined and independently verified in their proper legal and historical context.
The case is therefore being closely watched in both Nigeria and the United States, particularly because any release of previously confidential records could reignite public debate over events dating back to the early 1990s.
For now, the central issue before the US court is not whether President Tinubu committed a crime, but whether federal agencies should be required under American freedom-of-information law to release records relating to historical investigations while protecting information covered by privacy and other legal exemptions.
Comments
Post a Comment