Alleged Drug Probe: Tinubu Asks US Court to Block Release of FBI, DEA Records

By Marian Alekhue

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject efforts to compel the release of records relating to alleged investigations involving him by US law-enforcement agencies in the 1990s.

Tinubu, through his lawyers, argued that releasing the records would violate his privacy rights and urged the court to uphold the redactions and withholding of the documents by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The position was contained in a 16-page court filing submitted on Tinubu’s behalf in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit instituted by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan against several US government agencies.

The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH.

Greenspan has been seeking records from the FBI, DEA and other US agencies relating to Tinubu and an alleged international drug-trafficking and money-laundering investigation dating back to the early 1990s.

Among the documents sought are what Greenspan describes as the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview records concerning him from an FBI case covering 1992 and 1993.

However, the litigation has not established that Tinubu committed drug trafficking, money laundering or any other crime. Rather, Greenspan is seeking access to government records which he argues could provide information about investigations involving the Nigerian president.

In the latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers — Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi — argued that the records should remain redacted or withheld under US privacy laws.

They maintained that the fact that some information relating to Tinubu may have appeared in publicly accessible court records does not extinguish his privacy interest in confidential government investigative files.

The lawyers relied, in part, on the US Supreme Court’s decision in US Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, arguing that an individual’s privacy interest in government investigative records can remain protected even when portions of information contained in such files have previously become public.

They also cited US court decisions which hold that public disclosure of an individual’s association with an investigation does not necessarily amount to disclosure of the contents of the underlying investigative file.

The FOIA dispute also involves records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000, which Greenspan links to Tinubu.

The forfeiture proceeding has previously featured in court records relating to the litigation. In a 2025 ruling, US District Judge Beryl A. Howell examined Greenspan’s requests for records concerning Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele in connection with what Greenspan described as a federal investigation into an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation in the early 1990s.

The court’s discussion of the allegations and investigative records, however, did not amount to a judicial finding that Tinubu participated in drug trafficking or money laundering. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

Greenspan began filing FOIA requests with US federal agencies in 2022 and 2023, seeking records concerning Tinubu and other individuals.

The requests were directed to several agencies, including the FBI, DEA, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of State, Internal Revenue Service and the Executive Office for US Attorneys.

After the agencies’ responses failed to satisfy him, Greenspan filed the lawsuit in June 2023.

The FBI and DEA initially relied on what is known as a “Glomar response”, under which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive law-enforcement records where doing so could implicate protected interests.

Greenspan challenged the responses, arguing that previous official disclosures and court records had already established the existence of investigations involving Tinubu.

In April 2025, Judge Howell issued a ruling addressing aspects of the FOIA dispute, including the agencies’ reliance on privacy exemptions and Greenspan’s arguments concerning alleged official acknowledgments and publicly available information.

The dispute has continued into 2026.

On August 20, the FBI asked the court for permission to submit sensitive information privately and under seal in support of its renewed position concerning records connected to Tinubu.

The agency sought to submit declarations ex parte and in camera — meaning privately and for the judge’s review rather than on the public court docket.

According to reports on the filing, the FBI argued that publicly explaining the basis for certain redactions could reveal law-enforcement methods or potentially expose individuals to risks.

Greenspan has continued to challenge the withholding of the records.

In an August 2026 status report cited by US media, he complained that, despite years of litigation, he had yet to receive a page produced by the FBI or DEA containing Tinubu’s name.

In the latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Greenspan’s primary objective was to obtain government documents bearing the president’s name, but maintained that such an objective does not override privacy protections under US FOIA law.

The legal team specifically invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law-enforcement records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

They also relied on protections under the US Privacy Act and challenged Greenspan’s arguments concerning the adequacy of the FBI’s search, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability of records, document-specific withholdings and the application of various FOIA exemptions.

Tinubu’s lawyers therefore asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their existing redactions and withholdings.

The case remains a dispute over access to government records. It does not, by itself, establish that Tinubu committed any criminal offence.