Keypoints:
- Tinubu seeks to preserve FBI and DEA redactions
- Lawyers argue disclosure would breach privacy rights
- Judge privately reviews disputed FBI material
NIGERIAN President Bola Tinubu has asked a US federal court to preserve redactions and withholdings in FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration records concerning historical investigations involving him, intensifying a long-running battle over what American law-enforcement agencies must make public.
The latest filing shifts the dispute beyond whether US agencies possess records concerning Tinubu. The central question is now how much of those records can legally remain hidden under privacy and law-enforcement exemptions contained in the US Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.
Tinubu presses privacy argument
Tinubu’s lawyers filed a 16-page submission on August 28 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, opposing transparency activist Aaron Greenspan’s attempt to force further disclosure.
The lawyers asked US District Judge Beryl Howell to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow redactions and withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand.
Greenspan has pursued records concerning Tinubu through FOIA requests dating to 2022 and 2023. They include the FBI’s file concerning Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records from 1992 and 1993.
The dispute also encompasses records linked to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000 associated with accounts linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
His lawyers argue that earlier disclosure of information from the forfeiture proceedings does not eliminate his privacy interest in investigative material that has not been made public.
They rely partly on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement information where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Court forced agencies to search
The case changed significantly in April 2025 when Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer use so-called ‘Glomar’ responses to Greenspan’s requests.
Howell found that previous US government disclosures had officially acknowledged that Tinubu had been criminally investigated as part of a broader investigation involving the FBI and DEA.
She therefore ordered both agencies to search for and process responsive records, subject to legitimate FOIA exemptions.
That ruling requires an important distinction.
It established that US authorities had officially acknowledged an FBI- and DEA-linked criminal investigation involving Tinubu. It did not establish that Tinubu committed a criminal offence, determine the truth of historical allegations or amount to a criminal conviction.
The present proceedings concern access to government records, not a criminal prosecution of the Nigerian president.
Judge reviews records privately
The disclosure battle has now moved directly before Howell.
On August 28, the FBI delivered confidential records and supporting material to the court under seal for an ex parte, in-camera review following an August 20 order.
The procedure allows Howell to examine disputed material privately while considering the FBI’s justification for withholding information. The material has not been released to Greenspan or the public.
The FBI and DEA have meanwhile processed responsive material, with portions redacted or withheld under FOIA exemptions relating to privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and physical safety.
Greenspan is challenging aspects of those decisions and seeking further disclosure.
Tinubu’s intervention places his own privacy arguments directly before the court as Howell considers whether the agencies have adequately justified keeping portions of the records secret.
The case also comes as Nigeria’s 2027 presidential campaign gathers momentum, increasing the political sensitivity surrounding records connected with events more than three decades old.
What happens next?
Howell must determine whether the FBI and DEA properly applied the exemptions used to redact or withhold information and whether Greenspan has established grounds for further disclosure.
A ruling favouring Greenspan could expose additional portions of the records. A decision supporting the agencies and Tinubu could leave disputed material protected under US freedom-of-information law.
For Tinubu, the stakes extend beyond an American transparency dispute. The case is unfolding as Nigeria moves deeper into the 2027 election cycle, renewing scrutiny of a chapter of his past that has followed him throughout his political career.
Related stories
Nigeria campaign tests Tinubu’s reforms
Nigeria opposition fractures before primaries
Atiku prepares seventh Nigeria presidential bid
