President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to block the release of certain investigative records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that their disclosure could violate his privacy rights.
The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against several US government agencies to obtain documents relating to past investigations in which Tinubu’s name allegedly appeared.
Greenspan’s requests reportedly include the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview records relating to events between 1992 and 1993.
The legal dispute also involves records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing. The existence of investigative records, however, does not by itself establish that he committed a criminal offence.
In a 16-page filing dated August 28, 2026, Tinubu’s lawyers urged the court to reject Greenspan’s bid to compel further disclosure and allow the redactions and withholdings already made by the FBI and DEA to remain in place.
The filing was submitted on Tinubu’s behalf by lawyers Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi.
According to the legal team, the limited information previously disclosed during the civil forfeiture proceedings did not extinguish Tinubu’s privacy interest in undisclosed details contained in the investigative files.
The lawyers argued that the fact that some information may already be publicly available does not remove an individual’s continuing privacy interest in investigative details that have never been disclosed.
They maintained that Greenspan had failed to identify any existing public record containing the complete details of a criminal investigation or government findings concerning Tinubu.
“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation, or its results, involving Intervenor,” the filing stated.
Tinubu’s lawyers further argued that Greenspan’s application was specifically aimed at obtaining information that remains outside the public domain.
“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public,” they argued.
To support their position, the lawyers cited decisions of the US Supreme Court and other federal courts, maintaining that an individual can retain a privacy interest in a complete government investigative file even when portions of information from the same matter have previously become public.
They relied in particular on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, arguing that privacy protections can continue to apply to information even when related material “may have been public at one time.”
The legal team also cited Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, arguing that a person may retain a privacy interest in investigative information despite having previously been publicly associated with alleged criminal activity.
Another case cited was Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Justice, in which a US appellate court held that individuals publicly identified in portions of an investigative report could still retain an interest in preventing disclosure of detailed investigative information concerning them.
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” Tinubu’s lawyers submitted.
The dispute largely centres on whether the records can continue to be withheld under exemptions contained in the US Freedom of Information Act and provisions of the Privacy Act.
Tinubu’s lawyers specifically invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Greenspan has challenged several aspects of the agencies’ handling of his FOIA requests, including the adequacy of the FBI’s searches, the DEA’s index of withheld records, document-specific redactions and whether information concerning deceased individuals or confidential sources should remain protected.
Tinubu’s legal team, however, argued that the disputes should be considered in light of what it described as Greenspan’s primary objective of obtaining records bearing the President’s name.
“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers stated.
They argued that challenges to the FBI and DEA’s handling of the requests should not give Greenspan access to records that are otherwise protected by FOIA exemptions or the Privacy Act.
“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 added.
Tinubu’s lawyers consequently asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and uphold the redactions and withholdings already imposed by the FBI and DEA.
“For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand,” the filing concluded.
The ongoing litigation does not determine whether the allegations underlying the requested records are true. The immediate issue before the US court is whether the FBI, DEA and other government agencies can lawfully continue withholding or redacting the information sought under FOIA in light of privacy and law-enforcement protections.
The case has nevertheless renewed attention on the 1993 civil forfeiture proceedings involving Tinubu in the United States. The latest filing, however, is principally focused on access to government records and the extent of privacy protections under US freedom-of-information law.
In this article