President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to block the further release of FBI and DEA records concerning investigations allegedly involving him, arguing that the documents are protected by privacy laws.
Tinubu, who joined the case as an intervenor, filed the response on Friday before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
He urged the court to reject Aaron Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to retain redactions and withholdings in records already released.
Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records concerning Tinubu, including the “entire FBI file” on the Nigerian president and FBI interview records from 1992 to 1993.
The case relates to 12 FOIA requests Greenspan submitted to six US federal agencies for investigative records concerning a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s. Tinubu was among four individuals named in the requests.
In April 2025, Beryl Howell, a US district judge, ruled that the FBI and DEA had improperly refused to confirm or deny whether they held records relating to Tinubu.
Howell ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
The FBI and DEA subsequently released thousands of documents, including records containing redactions, as well as a Vaughn index explaining the basis for some of the withholdings.
Greenspan later asked the court to order further disclosure, arguing that the records released by the agencies did not adequately satisfy his requests.
Tinubu says FOIA does not cover private information
In his latest filing, Tinubu argued that FOIA is designed to provide information about government activities, rather than expose private information about individuals contained in government files.
“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining information the government collected about private individuals,” the filing states.
His lawyers argued that Greenspan’s requests focus primarily on information about Tinubu, rather than information that would shed light on how US government agencies performed their duties.
They cited a 1989 US Supreme Court decision which held that disclosure of records concerning private citizens generally reveals little about government operations.
Tinubu’s legal team also relied on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as protections under the US Privacy Act.
According to the filing, the FBI and DEA “properly redacted or withheld exempt information” from the records provided to Greenspan.
Lawyers reject argument over Glomar ruling
Tinubu’s lawyers also rejected Greenspan’s argument that Howell’s 2025 ruling against the FBI and DEA’s “Glomar” responses removed the president’s remaining privacy interest in the investigative files.
A Glomar response allows a government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
The filing said Howell had distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in keeping secret whether he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative files.
According to Tinubu’s lawyers, the 2025 ruling addressed the first issue but did not determine whether the contents of the investigative records should be released.
They argued that Howell had specifically recognised that individual portions of investigative files could still be protected through redactions and withholdings.
The lawyers further maintained that information about Tinubu already in the public domain did not eliminate his privacy rights over undisclosed details contained in government records.
Tinubu disputes public-interest argument
Tinubu’s legal team also challenged Greenspan’s argument that there is a public interest in obtaining the records because Tinubu is Nigeria’s president.
The lawyers argued that public curiosity about Tinubu’s background, political career or fitness for office does not amount to the type of public interest recognised under FOIA.
“Plaintiff’s interest in an individual or that individual’s activities is not a ‘public interest’ that FOIA recognizes,” they argued.
They said Greenspan’s filings showed that his primary objective was obtaining information about Tinubu rather than examining the conduct of the FBI, DEA or other US government agencies.
Tinubu’s lawyers also rejected suggestions of a secret prosecution or government cover-up, describing them as “unsubstantiated allegations” that do not justify releasing law-enforcement records concerning an individual.
They argued that Greenspan had failed to provide sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing.
President seeks to preserve redactions
Tinubu’s lawyers also opposed Greenspan’s challenges to the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn index, the agencies’ exemption claims and their handling of segregable information.
They argued that these issues should be considered in the context of what they described as Greenspan’s broader objective of obtaining documents containing Tinubu’s name.
“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 states.
Tinubu is therefore asking the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their existing redactions and withholdings.
How the case began
Greenspan filed the FOIA requests in 2022 and 2023, seeking records from the CIA, FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State.
The requests concerned investigative records linked to the Chicago drug-trafficking case and named Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Several agencies initially issued Glomar responses, saying they could neither confirm nor deny whether responsive records existed.
In her April 2025 ruling, however, Howell held that the FBI and DEA had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
She ordered both agencies to search for and process non-exempt records, while sustaining the CIA’s Glomar response.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing linked to the allegations.
