President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to prevent the release of certain investigative records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration concerning him, arguing that disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act could violate his privacy rights.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who instituted a FOIA lawsuit against several United States government agencies seeking documents relating to past investigations in which Tinubu’s name allegedly appeared.
Greenspan’s requests reportedly include the FBI’s entire file relating to Tinubu as well as FBI Form 302 interview records concerning events between 1992 and 1993.
The proceedings also touch on records associated with a 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing, and the existence of investigative records does not by itself establish that he committed any criminal offence.
In a 16-page filing dated August 28, 2026, Tinubu’s legal team asked the court to reject Greenspan’s attempt to compel further disclosure and to allow existing redactions and withholdings by the FBI and DEA to remain in place.
The filing was made by lawyers Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi on Tinubu’s behalf.
According to the legal team, the limited information previously disclosed in connection with the civil forfeiture proceeding did not eliminate Tinubu’s privacy interest in undisclosed details contained in investigative files.
The lawyers argued that although portions of information may already be publicly available, US law recognises a continuing privacy interest in details of an investigation that have never been disclosed.
They maintained that Greenspan had not identified any existing public record containing the complete details of a criminal investigation or governmental findings concerning Tinubu.
“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation, or its results, involving Intervenor,” the filing stated.
Tinubu’s lawyers contended that Greenspan’s application was specifically designed to obtain information that was not already in the public domain.
“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public,” they argued.
They relied on previous decisions of the US Supreme Court and other federal courts to support the proposition that an individual can retain a privacy interest in a complete government file even where fragments of information from the same matter have previously become public.
The legal team cited the US Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, arguing that privacy rights can continue to attach to information even where some related material has previously entered the public domain.
According to the filing, the Supreme Court had recognised privacy interests in non-disclosure of certain information even where some information “may have been public at one time.”
Tinubu’s lawyers also relied on Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, arguing that a person may retain a privacy interest in investigative information despite having previously been publicly associated with criminal activity.
They further cited Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Justice, in which a US appellate court held that individuals publicly named in portions of an investigative report could still retain an interest in preventing disclosure of detailed investigative material concerning them.
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” Tinubu’s lawyers submitted.
The legal dispute centres substantially on whether records may be withheld under exemptions contained in the US Freedom of Information Act and provisions of the Privacy Act.
Tinubu’s lawyers specifically relied on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
According to the filing, Greenspan has challenged several aspects of the government agencies’ handling of his requests, including the adequacy of the FBI’s searches, the DEA’s index of withheld materials, document-specific redactions and whether information concerning deceased persons or confidential sources should remain protected.
Tinubu’s legal team, however, argued that those disputes should be viewed against what they described as Greenspan’s overriding objective of obtaining records bearing the President’s name.
“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers stated.
They argued that challenges to the FBI and DEA’s handling of the requests should not entitle Greenspan to records that are otherwise lawfully protected by FOIA exemptions or the Privacy Act.
“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the filing added.
The lawyers therefore asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and uphold the redactions and withholdings already made by the FBI and DEA.
“For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand,” the filing concluded.
The litigation does not itself determine whether the allegations underlying the requested records are true. Rather, the immediate issue before the US court concerns whether the FBI, DEA and other agencies can lawfully continue withholding or redacting information sought under FOIA in light of asserted privacy and law-enforcement protections.
The case has renewed public attention on the 1993 civil forfeiture proceedings associated with Tinubu in the United States, but the current filing is principally concerned with access to government records and the scope of privacy protections under American freedom-of-information law.
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
______________________________________________________________________
