President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a bid seeking the release of additional records from past 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 request in a legal response filed on Friday before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Nigerian president urged the court to dismiss Aaron Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to retain existing redactions and withholdings in documents already released.
Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, had filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records relating to Tinubu, including what he described as the “entire FBI file” on the Nigerian president and FBI interview records from 1992 to 1993.
The requests formed part of 12 FOIA applications submitted by Greenspan to six US federal agencies for investigative records concerning a Chicago heroin-trafficking ring that operated in the early 1990s. Tinubu was among four individuals named in the requests.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA had improperly refused to confirm or deny whether they possessed records relating to Tinubu.
Howell subsequently ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
The FBI and DEA later released thousands of documents, some of which contained redactions, alongside a Vaughn index setting out the basis for certain withholdings.
Greenspan subsequently returned to court, seeking further disclosure and arguing that the documents released by the agencies did not adequately satisfy his requests.
Tinubu: FOIA Not Meant to Expose Private Information
In his latest filing, Tinubu argued that the FOIA was designed to promote transparency about government activities and not to provide access to private information about individuals contained in government records.
“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining information the government collected about private individuals,” the filing states.
His lawyers argued that Greenspan’s requests were primarily aimed at obtaining information about Tinubu rather than information that would shed light on how the FBI, DEA or other government agencies performed their official duties.
They relied on a 1989 US Supreme Court decision which, they said, established that disclosure of records concerning private individuals generally reveals little about government operations.
Tinubu’s legal team further argued that the redacted material falls within FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law-enforcement records where disclosure could amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as protections under the US Privacy Act.
According to the filing, the FBI and DEA “properly redacted or withheld exempt information” from the records released to Greenspan.
Lawyers Challenge Argument Over 2025 Ruling
Tinubu’s lawyers also disputed Greenspan’s contention that Howell’s 2025 decision, which rejected the FBI and DEA’s “Glomar” responses, effectively removed the president’s privacy rights over the contents of any investigative files.
A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
The lawyers argued that Howell’s ruling distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in keeping confidential the fact that he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative records.
According to the legal team, the earlier ruling addressed only the first issue and did not automatically require the release of the contents of investigative files.
They said Howell had expressly recognised that individual documents could still be protected through applicable exemptions, redactions and withholdings.
The lawyers further maintained that the existence of information about Tinubu in the public domain did not extinguish his privacy interests in undisclosed details contained in government records.
Tinubu Rejects Claimed Public Interest
The president’s legal team also challenged Greenspan’s argument that there was a legitimate public interest in the records because Tinubu is Nigeria’s president.
The lawyers argued that public curiosity about Tinubu’s background, political career or fitness for office does not constitute the type of public interest recognised by the FOIA.
“Plaintiff’s interest in an individual or that individual’s activities is not a ‘public interest’ that FOIA recognizes,” they argued.
They maintained that Greenspan’s court filings demonstrated that his primary objective was to obtain information about Tinubu rather than investigate the conduct of the FBI, DEA or other US agencies.
The lawyers also rejected suggestions of a secret prosecution or government cover-up, describing such claims as “unsubstantiated allegations” that could not justify the disclosure of protected law-enforcement records.
They argued that Greenspan had not provided sufficient evidence to establish government misconduct.
President Seeks to Preserve Redactions
Tinubu’s lawyers also opposed Greenspan’s challenges to the adequacy of the FBI’s search, the DEA’s Vaughn index, the agencies’ reliance on FOIA exemptions and their handling of segregable information.
They argued that the issues should be considered against what they described as Greenspan’s broader attempt to obtain 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 judgment and permit the FBI and DEA to maintain the existing redactions and withholdings.
The case dates back to FOIA requests filed by Greenspan 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 linked 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.
However, in her April 2025 ruling, Howell held that the FBI and DEA had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest to keep secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
She ordered the two agencies to search for and process non-exempt records, while allowing the CIA to maintain its Glomar response.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.
