FBI, DEA records : Tinubu’s lawyers make new demand in US court

Lawyers representing President Bola Tinubu have urged a United States federal court to reject a request by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for unredacted FBI and DEA records linked to an investigation involving the Nigerian leader, arguing that the records are being sought partly to influence politics in Nigeria.

The position was contained in an amended response filed before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where Greenspan is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act case against US government agencies.

Greenspan has asked the court to compel the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for US Attorneys to release records relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation which, according to his filings, identified Tinubu as a subject.

Tinubu’s lawyers are opposing Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and have asked the court to uphold the redactions and withholding of portions of records already processed by the agencies.

At the centre of their argument is the contention that Greenspan’s request is focused primarily on obtaining records bearing Tinubu’s name rather than information that would shed light on the performance of the US agencies.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers said.

They argued that the records concern an individual’s private information and that releasing them would not necessarily provide information about how the FBI or DEA carried out their official responsibilities.

The lawyers also referred to Greenspan’s stated interest in Tinubu’s fitness for public office, arguing that the FOIA request was being used to pursue information about individuals allegedly connected to criminal investigations.

“Plaintiff is admittedly attempting using FOIA to try to implicate private individuals in criminal investigations and possible indictments,” they said.

The legal team further alleged that Greenspan’s requests were aimed at finding alleged criminal records concerning Tinubu and using such information to affect political developments in Nigeria.

“Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are also intended to uncover alleged criminal records of an individual and utilize those to influence politics in a foreign nation,” the filing states.

“Neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are ‘public interests’ that FOIA recognizes,” the lawyers argued.

The dispute dates back to 2023, when Greenspan began litigating over his requests for records from US agencies.

In April 2025, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on an earlier refusal by the FBI and DEA to confirm or deny whether records responsive to the requests existed. The court ordered the agencies to search for and process records that were not exempt from disclosure.

Tinubu’s lawyers have now maintained that the earlier ruling did not amount to an order requiring the government to release every piece of information contained in investigative files.

They distinguished between establishing whether an investigation existed and compelling disclosure of the contents of records generated during such an investigation.

According to the lawyers, the FBI and DEA have already released thousands of pages of documents, while other portions remain redacted or withheld.

They cited FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act as legal grounds for protecting personal information contained in law-enforcement records.

The lawyers also challenged Greenspan’s apparent reliance on the fact that information concerning Tinubu’s background became public following a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding.

They argued that the forfeiture case did not make public the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.

“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 said.

The lawyers further argued that Tinubu’s status as Nigeria’s president does not automatically eliminate his privacy protections in relation to records concerning events that allegedly occurred before he assumed public office.

“Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the amended filing states.

They said the records sought by Greenspan relate to events dating approximately from 1988 to 1991.

The legal team also disputed claims of possible government misconduct, including allegations relating to a hidden prosecution, secret agreement or cover-up, arguing that Greenspan had not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims.

“Unsubstantiated assertions of government wrongdoing” do not, according to the lawyers, justify access to private law-enforcement information.

Tinubu’s lawyers subsequently asked the court to dismiss Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and permit the FBI and DEA to retain the redactions and withholdings currently applied to the records.

The filing represents the position of Tinubu and his legal team in the ongoing litigation. It does not establish that the records contain evidence of criminal conduct by the President, nor does it constitute a judicial finding on Greenspan’s allegations.

Greenspan has asked the federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for US Attorneys to release records without redactions relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation that he says identified Tinubu as a subject.

The case also involves documents connected to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.

Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

Greenspan, an American researcher and information technology expert who founded the legal transparency platform PlainSite, initiated the FOIA requests through a series of filings in his lawsuit against the US agencies.

(SAHARA REPORTERS)