NEWS
FBI Seeks Secret Court Filing Over Withheld Tinubu Investigation Records as US FOIA Case Takes Fresh Turn
FBI Seeks Secret Court Filing Over Withheld Tinubu Investigation Records as US FOIA Case Takes Fresh Turn
…says Disclosing Tinubu’s Records Could Endanger Lives
Channel
The legal battle over the release of United States government records connected to allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken another dramatic turn, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking permission to privately submit classified explanations to a federal judge on why certain information should remain hidden from public disclosure.
In a fresh application dated August 20, the FBI asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to submit an ex parte in camera declaration under seal.
An ex parte in camera declaration is a written statement submitted solely to a judge by a party in a legal case, without the document being made available to the opposing party or the public.
According to the FBI, it cannot publicly disclose all the reasons behind its decision to withhold some records connected to requests for information relating to Tinubu.
The development comes amid an ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, an American transparency advocate and founder of PlainSite, who has been pursuing the release of records from several US federal agencies concerning criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin trafficking ring that operated in the early 1990s.
A copy of the FBI’s latest application was published on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by Atiku Abubakar, the former vice-president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) for the 2027 elections.
FBI Cites Security, Privacy and Law Enforcement Concerns:-
The FBI said it invoked several exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act in response to requests seeking records relating to Tinubu from the period between 1992 and 1993.
The agency argued that releasing some of the withheld information could expose sensitive law enforcement methods and potentially place individuals at risk.
The FBI stated that disclosure “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
Part of the FBI’s application reads:
“One of the requests at issue is the request assigned Request Number 1588244-000, which sought “[t]he entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023”
“Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the FBI seeking “FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993.”
“This was assigned Request Number 1593615-000. The FBI has invoked various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions, including 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) regarding these requests, and determined the information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed, would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.»
“The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
The exemptions cited by the FBI cover a range of concerns, including personal privacy, confidential sources, law enforcement techniques and procedures, and situations where disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
The agency is now asking Judge Beryl Howell to allow it to provide a fuller explanation privately and under seal.
If the court grants the request, the FBI said it would submit its ex parte in camera declaration explaining the basis for withholding the disputed information before August 28.
Greenspan at the Centre of the Legal Battle:-
The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Greenspan, has spent years pursuing the records through the Freedom of Information Act.
The dispute stems from FOIA requests filed in 2022 and 2023, when Greenspan sought information from six different US federal agencies concerning criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin ring believed to have operated in the early 1990s.
His requests specifically sought investigative records concerning four individuals allegedly associated with the drug ring — Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
However, five of the agencies initially refused to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed.
The agencies relied on what is known in US law as a Glomar response an official position in which a government agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of requested records.
Unhappy with the agencies’ position, Greenspan appealed to the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, OIP.
Court documents indicate that the OIP upheld the agencies’ decision to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the records. That decision eventually pushed Greenspan to take the matter to court.
Lawsuit Challenged Agencies’ Refusal:-
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the Glomar responses issued by the federal agencies.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, EOUSA, and Department of State were initially named as defendants in the suit.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was later added as a defendant in Greenspan’s first amended complaint.
The case later produced a significant ruling in April 2025 when Judge Howell held that the FBI and DEA’s responses were “improper and must be lifted.”
In her ruling, Howell found that the agencies had failed to provide sufficient information to justify keeping secret the fact of whether Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
The judge ruled that the agencies failed to provide information to “establish cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation.”
Howell further held that the FBI and DEA had not provided sufficient evidence to sustain their Glomar responses.
The ruling marked a major development in Greenspan’s effort to force the agencies to address the substance of his requests rather than simply refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records.
DOJ and Tinubu Also Sought More Time:-
The FBI’s latest application comes shortly after another dispute over deadlines in the same legal battle.
The US Department of Justice recently requested an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records related to allegations of drug trafficking against Tinubu.
However, Judge Howell granted only four additional days, setting August 21 as the deadline.
Tinubu, through his legal team, subsequently joined the DOJ’s request for an additional 10-day extension.
Judge Howell was said to have declined Tinubu’s request.
The latest move by the FBI to file an ex parte declaration under seal now introduces another layer of complexity into a case that has continued to attract attention in both the United States and Nigeria.
While the FBI has made clear that it is withholding certain information on legal, security and safety grounds, Greenspan’s lawsuit continues to test the extent to which US federal agencies can shield records from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The court’s decision on whether to permit the FBI’s secret filing could determine how much of the agency’s justification will remain outside public view as the high-profile battle over the disputed records enters another critical phase.