President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to keep his unredacted records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from being released publicly, arguing that US privacy laws protect the information.
The President’s position was contained in court filings submitted by his lawyers, Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.
Tinubu’s legal team gave several reasons why the court should reject Greenspan’s request, including the argument that the records are protected under the US Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, that there is no legally recognised public interest requiring their disclosure and that the request has a political dimension.
Greenspan is seeking historical US government records relating to Tinubu, including his entire FBI file and FBI Form 302 interview records from 1992 and 1993.
The dispute has revived controversy over Tinubu’s dealings with US authorities in the 1990s, particularly a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving $460,000 held in an account associated with him.
A US District Court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of the money after US authorities alleged that it represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was connected to prohibited financial transactions.
However, the All Progressives Congress maintained during the 2023 presidential election litigation that the matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding rather than a criminal conviction.
The Labour Party and its then presidential candidate, Peter Obi, had argued that the forfeiture should have consequences under the Nigerian Constitution.
The Presidential Election Petition Court ruled in September 2023 that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.
Why Tinubu Wants the Records Withheld
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Greenspan’s request falls outside the type of public interest that US FOIA law is designed to protect.
Greenspan had argued that his request concerned the “sitting President of Nigeria” and a country whose population is directly affected by the President’s decisions.
Tinubu’s lawyers rejected that argument, saying Nigerians’ interest in the President’s personal history does not automatically constitute a public interest recognised under US FOIA law.
They also challenged the argument that the records could establish whether Tinubu is fit to hold public office.
“The asserted ‘public interest in Tinubu’s own fitness for office’ is not an interest FOIA recognises or one that needs to be balanced.”
The lawyers relied on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
They also cited a 1989 US Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, arguing that FOIA is primarily concerned with allowing the public to understand government activities, rather than providing access to private information contained in government files.
According to Tinubu’s lawyers, the records Greenspan seeks would reveal little about the conduct of US government agencies.
“Disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files”does not necessarily reveal information about an agency’s own conduct, the lawyers argued.
Tinubu’s Lawyers Question Political Motive
The President’s legal team also questioned Greenspan’s motivation for seeking the documents.
They argued that his court filings demonstrate a particular interest in obtaining government records containing Tinubu’s name.
“All of plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of plaintiff’s overarching goal.”
The lawyers further argued that Greenspan’s filings “overwhelmingly demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with intervenor’s ‘name on them.’”
They urged the court not to allow the FOIA process to become a means of obtaining private information simply because the individual concerned holds political office.
The lawyers also rejected suggestions that the requested documents could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.
They described such suggestions as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
“Unsubstantiated allegations are easy to assert in filings, but insufficient to justify a request for information about an individual.”
Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that Greenspan had not produced evidence demonstrating government wrongdoing that would justify overriding the privacy protections attached to the records.
Tinubu Challenges Argument That Records Are Already Public
The President’s legal team also disputed Greenspan’s argument that Tinubu’s privacy interests had been weakened because information about the historical investigation had already entered the public domain.
They argued that the 1993 forfeiture proceedings, including documents filed during the case, did not reveal the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.
The lawyers maintained that even if certain information had previously become public, Tinubu could still have a privacy interest in information contained in investigative files that had never been disclosed.
They therefore asked the court to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholding of the disputed records.
In April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their so-called “Glomar” responses, through which agencies had refused to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.
The judge directed the agencies to process the requested records subject to applicable legal exemptions.
The FBI has since sought to withhold portions of the records, citing provisions relating to law enforcement, personal privacy, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals.
The FBI also recently submitted some of the disputed records to Judge Howell under seal for private review.
Opposition Demands Release of Records
Tinubu’s latest court position has drawn criticism from opposition political groups in Nigeria, which argue that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in information concerning the President’s past.
African Democratic Congress spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi said Tinubu should allow the records to be released if he wants to put the controversy to rest.
“Why is the President opposing the release of his past records? That is suspicious. The President should allow them (records) to be released to clear himself.”
Abdullahi argued that allowing the documents to become public would give Tinubu an opportunity to address the allegations and protect his reputation.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, also called for the release of the records.
Director argued that describing the FOIA request as politically motivated should not prevent Nigerians from knowing what the documents contain.
“Nigerians deserve to know and in the interest of the President. He deserves to clear the air.”
The ongoing case, however, is a FOIA dispute over access to US government records. It is not itself a criminal prosecution against Tinubu and does not establish that he committed drug trafficking or money laundering.
The court must determine whether the FBI and DEA can legally withhold or redact the requested records under US law. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing, while the historical allegations remain disputed.
How did this story make you feel?
Join the conversation
Share a thoughtful response. Submissions may be reviewed before appearing.
