President Bola Tinubu has presented four reasons to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia why his unredacted records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should remain private.
Sponsored Ads
In filings submitted by his legal team and made public on Saturday, Tinubu argued that US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act provisions prevent the disclosure of the records.
Sponsored Ads
The President’s lawyers also argued that there was no recognised public interest that would justify releasing the documents and accused the petitioner of seeking the records for political purposes.
Tinubu’s legal team comprises Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi.
The case followed a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking the release of records relating to Tinubu under the US FOIA.
The request has generated political controversy in Nigeria, with opposition groups arguing that Nigerians have a right to know more about the President’s past.
The dispute over Tinubu’s history with US law enforcement became prominent during the build-up to the 2023 presidential election following the emergence of documents concerning a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States.
A US court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account linked to Tinubu after US authorities alleged that the money represented proceeds from narcotics trafficking or was connected to prohibited financial transactions.
The All Progressives Congress maintained during the presidential election litigation that the matter was a civil forfeiture case and did not amount to a criminal conviction.
The Labour Party and its then presidential candidate, Peter Obi, argued that the forfeiture constituted a disqualifying conviction under the Nigerian Constitution.
However, the Presidential Election Petition Court ruled in September 2023 that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.
Since then, opposition politicians and other interested parties have continued efforts to obtain official US records concerning the President.
In his latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers rejected Greenspan’s argument that the records should be released because they concern the sitting Nigerian President and could affect more than 230 million Nigerians.
The lawyers argued that Nigerian public interest in Tinubu’s background does not qualify as the type of public interest recognised under US FOIA law.
RELATED STORIES
Related Posts
They also rejected the argument that the records could help determine whether Tinubu is fit to hold public office, saying such considerations are outside the purpose of the US FOIA.
The legal team further argued that the requested records contain personal information protected under FOIA and the US Privacy Act.
They relied on the US Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which established that FOIA primarily concerns public access to information about government activities rather than private information held in government files.
Tinubu’s lawyers also questioned Greenspan’s motives, arguing that his filings showed a particular interest in obtaining government documents containing the President’s name.
They urged the court not to allow the FOIA process to be used to obtain personal information simply because the individual involved holds a powerful political position.
The legal team also rejected suggestions that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu, describing such claims as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The lawyers argued that allegations of government wrongdoing were not enough to overcome the privacy protections attached to law-enforcement records.
Tinubu’s lawyers further maintained that the fact that some information about the historical investigation had previously become public did not remove his privacy rights over details that had not been disclosed.
They therefore asked the court to reject Greenspan’s request for summary judgment and permit the FBI and DEA to continue withholding or redacting portions of the records.
The documents being sought include the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu and Form 302 interview records relating to him from 1992 and 1993.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to abandon their previous “Glomar” responses, under which the agencies declined to confirm or deny whether relevant records existed.
The agencies were subsequently directed to process the requested materials while applying exemptions permitted under US law.
The FBI has since sought to withhold parts of the records, citing provisions relating to law enforcement, personal privacy, investigative methods and the safety of individuals.
The case remains a dispute over access to US government records. It does not amount to a criminal prosecution of Tinubu or establish that he committed a drug-trafficking offence.
Comments are closed.