President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to reject a motion seeking the release of records relating to investigations allegedly invol
President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to reject a motion seeking the release of records relating to investigations allegedly involving him, arguing that the documents are protected by privacy provisions under US law.
Tinubu, who joined the case as an intervenor, made the argument in a response filed on Friday before the United States district court for the district of Columbia.
He asked the court to deny Aaron Greenspan’s motion for summary judgement and allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to maintain redactions and withholdings in records already released.
In April 2025, Beryl Howell, US district judge, ruled that the FBI and DEA’s earlier refusal to confirm or deny whether they had records relating to Tinubu was improper.
She ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
The FBI and DEA subsequently produced thousands of documents, some containing redactions, alongside a Vaughn index explaining the basis for certain withholdings.
Greenspan then asked the court to order further disclosure, arguing that the records released did not adequately respond to his requests.
In his latest response, Tinubu argued that FOIA is intended to provide information about government activities, rather than expose information about private individuals contained in government files.
“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining information the government collected about private individuals,” the filing states.
The president’s lawyers argued that Greenspan’s requests primarily seek information about Tinubu rather than information that would reveal how the US government or its agencies conducted their duties.
They cited a 1989 US Supreme Court decision which held that disclosure of records concerning private citizens generally reveals little about government operations.
Tinubu’s legal team also argued that the redacted material is protected under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which covers law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as the US Privacy Act.
According to the filing, the FBI and DEA “properly redacted or withheld exempt information” from the records provided to Greenspan.
Tinubu’s lawyers also rejected Greenspan’s argument that Howell’s 2025 ruling lifting the FBI and DEA’s “Glomar” responses meant the president had no remaining privacy interest in the contents of the investigative files.
A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
The filing said Howell had distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that he was investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative files.
According to Tinubu’s lawyers, the earlier ruling dealt with the first issue and did not determine whether the contents of investigative records should subsequently be released.
They argued that the judge had specifically recognised the possibility of protecting the contents of investigative files through individual withholdings and redactions.
The lawyers further maintained that the fact that some information about Tinubu’s past had entered the public domain did not eliminate his privacy interests in undisclosed details contained in government files.
Tinubu’s legal team also challenged Greenspan’s claim that there was a public interest in obtaining the records because Tinubu is Nigeria’s president.
The filing argued that an individual’s public interest in Tinubu’s background, political career or fitness for office is not the kind of public interest recognised under FOIA.
“Plaintiff’s interest in an individual or that individual’s activities is not a ‘public interest’ that FOIA recognizes,” the lawyers argued.
They said Greenspan’s filings showed that his focus was on obtaining information about Tinubu rather than examining the conduct of the FBI, DEA or other government agencies.
The lawyers also rejected suggestions of a secret prosecution or cover-up, describing such claims as “unsubstantiated allegations” that cannot justify disclosure of law-enforcement records concerning an individual.
They argued that Greenspan had not produced evidence sufficient to establish that government impropriety had occurred.
The president’s lawyers also opposed Greenspan’s challenges to the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn index, the agencies’ claims of exemptions and their handling of segregable information.
They argued that those issues should be considered against what they described as Greenspan’s overarching objective of obtaining documents containing Tinubu’s name.
“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 states.
Tinubu is therefore asking the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgement and allow the FBI and DEA’s existing redactions and withholdings to remain in place.
Greenspan filed the FOIA requests in 2022 and 2023 seeking records from the CIA, FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State.
The requests concerned investigative records relating to the Chicago drug-trafficking case and named Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Several agencies initially issued Glomar responses, saying they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.
In her April 2025 ruling, however, Howell held that the FBI and DEA had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
She ordered both agencies to search for and process non-exempt records, while sustaining the CIA’s Glomar response.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing linked to the allegations.
