President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to prevent the release of certain government records sought in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning past investigations and proceedings involving him.
The legal development forms part of an ongoing case filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan against several United States government agencies, including the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Greenspan is seeking access to documents that he says are relevant to investigations involving the Nigerian president. Among the materials requested are records from the FBI’s files concerning Tinubu, including interview records known as FBI Form 302 documents relating to the period between 1992 and 1993.
The dispute also concerns records associated with a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 that was linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations referenced in the case.
Tinubu cites privacy concerns
In a 16-page filing submitted to the court, Tinubu’s legal representatives argued that releasing the requested investigative records could violate his privacy rights.
The filing was submitted by lawyers Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi, according to court documents shared with Channels Television.
Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the existence of some information in previously disclosed public records does not automatically remove an individual’s privacy interest in the broader investigative files held by government agencies.
They relied on previous decisions of US courts, including a Supreme Court ruling concerning privacy interests in government records, to argue that information contained within an investigative file can remain protected even when limited details from the same matter have previously become public.
According to the lawyers, the fact that an individual may have been publicly associated with an investigation or legal proceeding does not necessarily mean that the government must disclose the contents of its investigative files.
The legal team further argued that the requested records could contain sensitive information about investigations, interviews, sources and other individuals whose identities or personal information may be protected under US law.
What Greenspan is seeking
Greenspan’s FOIA case seeks access to records held by US government agencies relating to Tinubu.
His requests reportedly include the FBI’s records concerning Tinubu as well as FBI Form 302 interview reports relating to the early 1990s.
The activist has challenged the extent of the agencies’ searches and the redactions and withholding of documents.
His arguments also address the DEA’s Vaughn Index, which is used in FOIA litigation to describe documents withheld by an agency and the legal basis for withholding them.
The dispute therefore involves broader questions about the extent to which US government agencies can withhold information under FOIA, particularly where privacy, confidential sources and investigative information are involved.
Legal team asks court to uphold redactions
Tinubu’s lawyers urged the court to reject Greenspan’s request for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain the redactions or withholding of documents they consider protected.
The lawyers argued that the plaintiff’s focus on obtaining documents containing Tinubu’s name should not override privacy protections provided under US law.
They specifically referred to exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, including Exemption 7(C), which can protect information compiled for law-enforcement purposes where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The legal team also cited the Privacy Act in support of its position.
According to the filing, even where portions of information may already have appeared in public records, undisclosed details within government investigative files may continue to attract privacy protection.
The allegations remain disputed
The court dispute should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that Tinubu committed drug-trafficking offences.
The records being sought relate to allegations and historical investigations, while Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
The current proceeding is primarily concerned with whether particular government records should be disclosed under the US Freedom of Information Act and whether exemptions permitting agencies to withhold or redact information apply.
A decision by the court on access to the documents would therefore address the disclosure dispute rather than, by itself, establish criminal liability.
Why the case matters
The litigation has attracted attention because it involves questions about transparency, government records and privacy protections surrounding a sitting foreign head of state.
FOIA generally provides mechanisms through which members of the public can request records from US federal agencies. However, the law contains several exemptions designed to protect sensitive information, including certain law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and information whose disclosure could interfere with protected government interests.
The Tinubu case places those competing principles — public access to government records and individual privacy — before the court.
The latest filing is part of an ongoing judicial process, and the final outcome will depend on the court’s consideration of the arguments presented by the parties and the applicable provisions of US law.