Tinubu Asks US Court To Block Release Of FBI, DEA Records

Lawyers representing President Bola Tinubu have urged a United States federal court to reject a request by transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, for additional records concerning the Nigerian leader, arguing that the documents relate to his private life before he entered politics and are protected by privacy laws.

The legal team made the submission in a filing dated August 28, 2026, in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Tinubu, who intervened to protect his interests, asked the court to dismiss Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to maintain redactions and withholdings in the records.

The case centres on Freedom of Information Act requests Greenspan filed seeking records relating to historical investigations involving Tinubu and others. Court records show that Greenspan’s requests include FBI records concerning Tinubu and interviews allegedly covering 1992 and 1993.

Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the information sought concerns law-enforcement records about him as a private citizen and does not necessarily shed light on how the US agencies performed their official duties.

They maintained that releasing the material could constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of people identified in the records without advancing a recognised public interest under FOIA.

The legal team placed particular emphasis on the records’ age and Tinubu’s status at the time.

“Regardless, Intervenor should retain his full privacy interests because he was not a public official in 1993,” the lawyers argued, adding that Greenspan’s requests concern “three decades old records pertaining to events that occurred when Intervenor was a student.”

The lawyers further contended that Tinubu’s subsequent election to public office did not automatically extinguish privacy protections for information about his earlier private life.

Tinubu’s lawyers relied principally on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which allows agencies to withhold certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

They also cited the Privacy Act as an additional legal basis for protecting personal information contained in government records.

The lawyers argued that holding public office does not mean an individual “forfeit[s] their personal privacy for FOIA purposes.”

Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ handling of his requests, which concern records connected with a federal investigation into an alleged Chicago-area heroin trafficking and money-laundering operation in the early 1990s. A 2025 ruling in the case addressed the agencies’ use of so-called “Glomar” responses, under which an agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.

Tinubu’s legal team also challenged Greenspan’s reliance on the public-domain doctrine.

The lawyers argued that documents relating to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds held in accounts bearing Tinubu’s name did not disclose the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving him.

They contended that the earlier documents established only the existence of a forfeiture proceeding and did not amount to an official disclosure of other investigative information.

The lawyers cited the US Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to support their argument that individuals can retain privacy interests in information contained in government files even when related details have previously become public.

The legal team also disputed Greenspan’s argument that disclosure would serve a public interest.

According to the filing, a general interest in Tinubu’s background or in influencing politics in another country does not fall within FOIA’s purpose.

The lawyers argued that the legislation is intended to promote transparency about the activities of the US government rather than satisfy “general public curiosity” about individuals.

The case follows multiple FOIA requests Greenspan submitted between 2022 and 2023 to US agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, and other government bodies. The requests sought records connected to an alleged early-1990s investigation involving Tinubu and other individuals.