BREAKING: President Tinubu Fights to Conceal FBI, DEA Records in U.S. Court Amid Drug Trafficking Probe Claims

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has formally asked a United States federal court to deny a request by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for the full release of additional records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) pertaining to him. Through his legal representatives, President Tinubu urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold the redactions and withholdings made by the two agencies, asserting that the contested material is safeguarded by privacy stipulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.

The core of Tinubu's argument, outlined in an amended response filed on October 1, 2026, in the case titled Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), centers on the fundamental purpose of FOIA. His lawyers contend that FOIA was primarily enacted to provide public insight into government operations, not to expose private information about individuals simply because government agencies may possess such data. They cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that disclosing records about private citizens might reveal "little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct."

Greenspan, an American researcher, IT expert, and founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, initiated the lawsuit seeking records concerning a 1990s narcotics investigation, which he claims identified Tinubu as a subject, and a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu. Greenspan had requested the court to mandate the release of these records without redaction, expressing dissatisfaction with the thousands of documents already provided by the FBI and DEA, some of which contained redactions. He notably stated that he did not recall seeing the word "Tinubu" on a single page of the government's productions, prompting his motion for summary judgment.

Tinubu's legal team has argued that the remaining information sought by Greenspan is protected under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which shields certain law-enforcement records whose disclosure could infringe upon personal privacy. Additionally, they invoked the Privacy Act as another legal basis for the government to withhold or redact personal information. They reiterated that "The DEA and FBI properly redacted or withheld exempt information from the responses to the requests."

The amended filing also addressed an earlier significant ruling in April 2025, where U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell had determined that the FBI and DEA could not employ "Glomar responses" – refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records – under the circumstances presented to the court. Judge Howell subsequently directed the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records. Tinubu's lawyers clarified that this ruling did not imply that all information within any responsive files must be released. They distinguished between Tinubu's interest in maintaining the secrecy of whether he was investigated and his separate privacy interest in the actual contents of any investigative files, arguing that the court had not yet addressed the latter.

Furthermore, Tinubu's lawyers rejected Greenspan's assertion that information connected with the 1993 forfeiture proceeding had already entered the public domain. They maintained that the prior proceeding did not unveil the specific details or outcomes of any potential criminal investigation involving Tinubu. They stated, "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." They emphasized that even if some information about an individual has become public, it does not necessarily negate that person's privacy interest in other undisclosed information. Tinubu, for his part, has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

A key contention raised by Tinubu's legal team is that Greenspan's true motivation extends beyond the recognized public interest of FOIA. They accused Greenspan of attempting to use FOIA to "implicate private individuals in criminal investigations and possible indictments" and to "influence politics in a foreign nation," specifically Nigeria. The lawyers stated that "Neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are 'public interests' that FOIA recognizes." They argued that Greenspan's filings overwhelmingly demonstrate his "singular focus" on obtaining documents with Tinubu’s "name on them" rather than revealing government conduct.

The lawyers also firmly asserted that Tinubu's current status as Nigeria's President does not invalidate his privacy rights concerning records related to events that transpired decades before his presidency. The amended filing explicitly states, "Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993." They pointed out that the records Greenspan is pursuing pertain to events from approximately 1988 to 1991, and his subsequent election should not diminish these privacy interests. They concluded that Greenspan had failed to present sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing or identify a compelling FOIA-recognized public interest that would outweigh Tinubu's protected privacy rights.

In light of these arguments, President Tinubu's lawyers have requested the court to deny Greenspan's motion for summary judgment and to uphold the existing redactions and withholdings made by the FBI and DEA, allowing them to remain in place.