President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s lawyers have acknowledged errors in an earlier filing before a United States federal court and asked the judge for permission to replace the document with an amended version in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.
The request was contained in a motion filed on October 1, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).
The case concerns Greenspan’s efforts to obtain records from United States government agencies relating to Tinubu and other individuals.
In the motion titled “Motion to Amend Response Brief [DE 98],” Tinubu’s lawyers asked the court to permit them to file an amended response to Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment.
The lawyers said the proposed corrections relate specifically to Part 1.c of their earlier response brief, where they acknowledged that some references concerning the year 1993, Tinubu’s public office and a comparison involving student enrolment were inaccurate.
According to the lawyers, the central point of Part 1.c was that the investigative events under discussion took place between 1988 and 1992, decades before Tinubu was elected President of Nigeria.
“The point of part 1.c is that the underlying investigative events that transpired in 1988-1992 occurred decades before the Intervenor was elected to the Presidency of Nigeria,” the lawyers stated.
However, they admitted that the point had been expressed “inadequately and incorrectly” in relation to Tinubu’s public office and the reference to 1993.
The lawyers also acknowledged a separate error involving a comparison between the age of the investigative records and an event relating to student enrolment.
They explained that the comparison was incorrect because the student-enrolment event actually occurred before the decades-old investigative events being discussed.
“Both issues occurred during the drafting and revising process by the undersigned counsel, occurred unintendedly, and were not found and edited prior to filing,” the lawyers said.
They added that Greenspan later identified the two errors in his reply to the earlier filing.
Despite acknowledging the mistakes, Tinubu’s legal team maintained that the errors did not affect the substance of their argument before the court.
“In the proposed amended response, the substance of the argument in part 1.c remains unchanged,” the lawyers said.
The proposed amendment maintains the argument that Tinubu’s privacy interests in records concerning events that occurred decades ago should not disappear simply because he subsequently became President of Nigeria.
The lawyers are opposing Greenspan’s request for additional records from U.S. government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
They have argued that the disputed information is protected under exemptions contained in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, particularly provisions relating to personal privacy and law-enforcement records.
Tinubu’s lawyers have also maintained that the records concern events that took place before he assumed the Nigerian presidency and that his current status as president does not automatically extinguish whatever privacy protections may apply to the records.
The correction motion further states that Tinubu’s lawyers discussed the proposed amendment with Greenspan and his legal representatives before approaching the court.
“Plaintiff indicated that he does not oppose the correction of the brief,” the filing states.
The lawyers consequently asked the federal court to permit them to withdraw or replace the earlier response identified as Document 98 with the amended version.
They also submitted a proposed order for the judge’s consideration.
However, the proposed order itself does not establish that the court had already approved the request. The document is expressly marked “[Proposed] ORDER” and contains a blank space for the signature of the United States District Judge.
The motion therefore represents a request by Tinubu’s lawyers rather than evidence that the judge had already granted permission for the amended filing.
The amended response attached to the motion continues to advance Tinubu’s substantive opposition to Greenspan’s attempt to obtain additional FBI and DEA records.
Among other arguments, Tinubu’s lawyers contend that the information sought by Greenspan falls within FOIA’s law-enforcement and personal-privacy protections and that the records should not be released without the applicable redactions or protections.
The lawyers have also argued that Tinubu’s privacy interests remain relevant despite his position as Nigeria’s President.
The latest filing does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Tinubu. Rather, it is an acknowledgment by his legal representatives that portions of their earlier court submission contained drafting and factual errors which they want to correct while preserving the underlying legal argument.
Greenspan’s lawsuit seeks access to records held by U.S. government agencies concerning a 1990s narcotics investigation which, according to his court filings, identified Tinubu as a subject.
The dispute also involves records connected to a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Greenspan has asked the federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to release the records without the redactions he is challenging.
The FOIA litigation has continued as Greenspan seeks additional information from the U.S. agencies and Tinubu, through his lawyers, challenges the release of records on privacy and other legal grounds.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations and records at issue.
Greenspan, an American researcher and information technology expert and founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, has pursued the records through a series of FOIA requests and subsequent court filings against U.S. government agencies.
The latest motion now places the focus on whether the federal court will permit Tinubu’s legal team to correct the acknowledged errors in its earlier response while retaining the same substantive position against Greenspan’s demand for further disclosure.