Lawyers representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have urged a United States federal court to reject transparency activist Aaron Greenspan’s request to introduce additional records in a lawsuit seeking access to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) documents.
In a court filing dated October 15, 2026, Tinubu’s legal team opposed Greenspan’s application asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to take judicial notice of additional public records concerning alleged hacking activities, criminal proceedings and media reports.
The lawsuit centres on Greenspan’s efforts to obtain FBI and DEA records relating to investigations involving Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abubakar Agbele in the 1990s.
Greenspan filed the request on October 8, seeking to use the additional records to support a separate application for permission to pursue limited discovery from Tinubu. Discovery is the legal process through which parties seek relevant information and documents in litigation.
Greenspan argues that the materials provide grounds to investigate possible attacks against him and his website. Tinubu’s lawyers, however, contend that the records do not establish the connection he is attempting to draw.
Tinubu’s Lawyers Challenge Timing, Credibility of Records
In their response, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Greenspan’s application was filed too late, coming more than a week after his reply in support of his request for limited discovery.
They also maintained that the 176 pages of additional materials referenced in the October 8 filing had been available earlier and should have been included in his previous submissions.
The legal team challenged Greenspan’s reliance on media reports and allegations contained in court documents, arguing that the existence of a report does not establish the truth of its contents.
“News articles are not appropriate for judicial notice for the truth, content, or veracity of their claims,” they argued.
Tinubu’s lawyers further noted that criminal indictments contain allegations that may not have been proven, insisting that the documents should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the claims Greenspan seeks to advance.
Their objection seeks to prevent the additional materials from being used to strengthen Greenspan’s application for permission to pursue further discovery from the President.
Greenspan Cites Alleged Hacking of Climate Activists
In his October 8 application, Greenspan asked the court to consider records relating to an alleged hacking campaign targeting climate activists, as well as criminal proceedings involving Israeli nationals Amit Forlit and Aviram Azari.
Forlit was charged in the United States with conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. Azari pleaded guilty to offences including conspiracy to commit computer hacking and wire fraud and was sentenced to 80 months in prison in 2023.
Greenspan cited records alleging that hackers targeted climate activists and that information obtained through the alleged operation was passed to a Washington-based lobbying firm.
He referenced court records and media reports identifying the firm as DCI Group and ExxonMobil as its client.
DCI Group has denied involvement in hacking, describing the allegations as “false and unsubstantiated,” according to a National Public Radio report included in Greenspan’s filing.
Explaining the purpose of his application, Greenspan wrote: “Plaintiff asks the Court to notice the existence of these records and what they state, and by whom, not the truth of any allegation they contain.”
He also acknowledged that no DCI entity had been charged in connection with the alleged hacking activities.
Greenspan Alleges Link to Nigerian Government Contract
Greenspan’s application also refers to DCI Group AZ, LLC, a related entity which he alleges receives $750,000 monthly from the Tinubu administration.
He further alleges that an account managed by the entity published a post attacking him on August 5, 2026.
Greenspan argues that the records provide a basis for investigating whether the alleged historical hacking activities are connected to possible attacks against him and his website.
“These records further demonstrate that Plaintiff’s request for discovery rests on quite a bit more than that,” he wrote.
He said the subpoena he seeks would be restricted to documents concerning him, the current lawsuit or attacks on his website.
However, the claims in Greenspan’s filing do not establish that DCI Group AZ, the Nigerian government or any other party ordered or carried out attacks against him. The materials also do not establish a connection between the alleged hacking of climate activists and the attacks he says he experienced.
Tinubu’s Lawyers Describe Proposed Link as Speculative
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Greenspan had not demonstrated a sufficient connection between the alleged historical hacking activities and the issues before the court.
They questioned whether the alleged hacking had any relevance to the lawsuit, suggesting that the issues might instead relate to other subjects Greenspan discusses publicly, including artificial intelligence, OpenAI, Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein.
The legal team urged the court to reject Greenspan’s application altogether.
Alternatively, they asked the court to limit any judicial notice to court records from the separate Azari case, while making clear that the allegations contained in those records had not necessarily been established as true.
The response also cited a government registration document indicating that DCI Group AZ, LLC was retained by Aster Legal in December 2025 for six months to lobby on behalf of the Republic of Nigeria on West African security issues.
The dispute remains centred on whether the additional records should be considered by the court and whether Greenspan has established sufficient grounds to pursue limited discovery from Tinubu. The objections and allegations described in the filings do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing by the President or any other party.
