Key Takeaways
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu asked the US District Court in Washington, DC to uphold FBI and DEA redactions and block further record disclosures.
The amended filing of October 1, 2026 in Aaron Greenspan’s FOIA case said agencies released thousands of documents, but withheld details under Exemption seven(C) and the Privacy Act.
Tinubu’s lawyers urged Judge Beryl Howell to deny Greenspan’s summary judgment bid, saying April 2025 anti-Glomar ruling still allows privacy-based redactions for 1988-1991 records.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a request seeking the disclosure of additional Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records concerning him.
The President argued that the withheld information is protected by privacy laws.
Tinubu, through his lawyers, urged the US District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold redactions and other information withheld by the two law enforcement agencies.
According to Sahara Reporters, the request was contained in an amended response filed on October 1, 2026, in the case, Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).
American researcher and transparency activist Aaron Greenspan is seeking records through the US Freedom of Information Act relating to Tinubu and others in connection with federal investigations dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Tinubu has denied any wrongdoing.
Tinubu’s lawyers told the court that the FBI and DEA had already provided “thousands of documents,” although some contained redactions, and the DEA also provided a document known as a Vaughn index, which identifies material withheld under particular legal exemptions.
The lawyers said Greenspan was dissatisfied with the production and had asked the court for summary judgment.
According to the amended filing, Greenspan said he did not recall seeing the word “Tinubu” on a single page of the documents provided by the government.
Tinubu’s lawyers, however, argued that FOIA was created primarily to give the public information about government activities and not to expose private information about individuals simply because government agencies possess it. Government
They cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision and argued that the disclosure of records about private citizens could reveal “little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.”
The lawyers said the remaining information sought by Greenspan was protected under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which covers certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could invade personal privacy.
They also relied on the Privacy Act, arguing that it provides an additional basis for the government to withhold or redact personal information.
“The DEA and FBI properly redacted or withheld exempt information from the responses to the requests,” the lawyers said.
The filing also addressed an earlier ruling in the case involving what is known as a Glomar response.
A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether records exist when doing so could itself reveal protected information.
In an April 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell held that the FBI and DEA could not rely on Glomar responses in the circumstances before the court and directed the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records.
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the ruling did not mean all information contained in any responsive files had to be released.
They said the court had distinguished between Tinubu’s interest in keeping secret whether he was investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative files.
The lawyers argued that the earlier ruling instead recognized that the contents of investigative records could still be protected through individual withholdings and redactions.
The lawyers also rejected Greenspan’s argument that information connected with a 1993 forfeiture proceeding had already entered the public domain.
They argued that the earlier proceeding did not disclose the details or results of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.
“Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor,” they said.
The lawyers argued that even where some information about an individual has previously become public, that does not necessarily remove the person’s privacy interest in other information that has never been disclosed.
They also maintained that Tinubu’s current position as Nigeria’s President does not eliminate his privacy rights over records concerning events that happened decades before he became president.
“Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the amended filing states.
The lawyers said the records Greenspan is seeking concern events from approximately 1988 to 1991 and argued that Tinubu’s subsequent election should not diminish his privacy interests in those records. Government
They further argued that Greenspan had not shown sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing to overcome the privacy protections.
Tinubu’s lawyers therefore asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA’s existing redactions and withholdings to remain in place.
FOLLOW US ON:
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
PINTEREST
TIKTOK
YOUTUBE
LINKEDIN
INSTAGRAM
