By Staff Reporter Odeh Rukevwe

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a federal court in the United States to reject a bid seeking the public release of records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning him.

The request is part of a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case initiated by American transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking access to documents relating to Tinubu from US law-enforcement agencies.

In court filings, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the requested materials should remain protected under US privacy laws. They maintained that the fact that Tinubu is Nigeria’s sitting president does not automatically remove his legal right to privacy.

The legal team further contended that the FOIA was designed primarily to promote transparency about government activities and should not be used to expose an individual’s personal information contained in law-enforcement files.

According to the lawyers, there was also insufficient public-interest justification under American law to warrant releasing the records. They argued that the request appeared to be driven largely by political interest surrounding Tinubu in Nigeria.

Greenspan is seeking several documents, including the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu and interview records connected to investigations conducted between 1992 and 1993.

The dispute is linked to renewed interest in Tinubu’s dealings with US authorities dating back to the 1990s. During the 2023 presidential election litigation, attention was drawn to a 1993 civil forfeiture case in Illinois involving about $460,000 in an account bearing Tinubu’s name.

US authorities had alleged that the money was associated with narcotics trafficking or other prohibited financial activity. Tinubu’s political camp, however, maintained that the matter was a civil forfeiture case and did not constitute a criminal conviction.

The issue has remained a subject of political debate, with opposition figures and other individuals continuing efforts to obtain records relating to the president from US agencies.

Tinubu’s lawyers have also challenged suggestions that the requested documents could reveal an undisclosed prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute him. They described such claims as speculative and said there was no established evidence supporting them.

The legal team further argued that the existence of previously disclosed information about the old investigation does not automatically eliminate Tinubu’s privacy rights over material that has never been made public.

The court battle took a significant turn in April 2025 when US District Judge Beryl Howell directed the FBI and DEA to process the requested records rather than relying on so-called “Glomar” responses, which allow agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The agencies were, however, allowed to apply exemptions provided under US law when determining which portions of the documents could be withheld or redacted.

The FBI has continued to argue that certain information should remain confidential, citing provisions relating to law-enforcement records, personal privacy, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals connected to investigations.

Tinubu’s latest court filing therefore seeks to prevent the unredacted FBI and DEA materials from being made available to the public while the legal dispute over their disclosure continues.