President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a request by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan seeking the release of additional records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to him.
Tinubu, through his lawyers, urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold the redactions and withholding of information contained in records released by the two agencies, arguing that the disputed materials are protected by privacy provisions under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.
The request was contained in an amended response filed on October 1, 2026, in the case of Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).
Greenspan had asked the court to compel the FBI, DEA and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to release additional records he obtained through FOIA requests concerning Tinubu and other individuals.
The American researcher, IT expert and founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, has argued that the agencies have failed to provide the records without redactions. He has specifically sought documents relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation which he says identified Tinubu as a subject, as well as records connected to a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
In the latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers said the FBI and DEA had already produced thousands of pages of documents in response to Greenspan’s requests, although portions of the records were redacted.
The lawyers also pointed to a Vaughn index supplied by the DEA, which identifies documents or portions of documents withheld and the legal exemptions relied upon by the agency.
According to the filing, Greenspan remained dissatisfied with the government’s production and subsequently asked the court to grant summary judgment in his favour.
The filing said Greenspan claimed that, despite the large volume of records released, he did not recall seeing the word “Tinubu” on a single page of the documents provided by the government.
Tinubu’s lawyers, however, argued that FOIA was primarily designed to provide the public with information about the activities of government agencies and not to expose private information about individuals merely because such information happens to be held by government authorities.
They relied on a 1989 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that disclosure of records concerning private individuals could reveal “little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.”
The lawyers maintained that the remaining information sought by Greenspan falls within FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain law-enforcement records from disclosure where releasing them could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
They also invoked the U.S. Privacy Act, arguing that the legislation provides an additional legal basis for withholding or redacting personal information contained in government records.
“The DEA and FBI properly redacted or withheld exempt information from the responses to the requests,” Tinubu’s lawyers stated in the amended filing.
The filing also addressed an earlier dispute over what is known as a Glomar response.
Under a Glomar response, a government agency can refuse to confirm or deny whether records exist where acknowledging the existence or non-existence of such records could itself disclose information protected by law.
In an April 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell held that the FBI and DEA could not rely on Glomar responses in the circumstances presented in the case.
The judge directed the agencies to search for and process records responsive to Greenspan’s requests, subject to applicable exemptions.
Tinubu’s lawyers, however, argued that the ruling did not require the agencies to disclose every piece of information contained in responsive investigative files.
According to them, the earlier ruling distinguished between Tinubu’s interest in keeping confidential whether he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative records.
“The first interest was implicated in the Glomar analysis, but this Court did not reach the second issue,” the lawyers argued.
They maintained that Judge Howell’s ruling recognised that while the agencies could not refuse to acknowledge the existence of records through a Glomar response, individual portions of investigative files could still be withheld or redacted where they were independently protected by applicable exemptions.
The lawyers also challenged Greenspan’s argument that information connected to the 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding had already entered the public domain and therefore could no longer be protected by privacy exemptions.
They argued that the earlier forfeiture proceeding did not disclose the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.
“Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor,” the lawyers said.
Tinubu’s legal team further argued that the fact that some information about an individual may have previously become public does not automatically eliminate the person’s privacy interest in other information that has never been disclosed.
They also rejected the suggestion that Tinubu’s current status as Nigeria’s President should affect his privacy rights concerning events dating back several decades.
“Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the amended filing stated.
The lawyers said the records being sought by Greenspan concern events dating approximately from 1988 to 1991 and argued that Tinubu’s subsequent election to public office did not extinguish his privacy interests in records relating to those earlier events.
They further argued that Greenspan had not provided sufficient evidence of government misconduct capable of overriding the privacy protections attached to the records.
The legal team therefore asked the federal court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and permit the FBI and DEA to maintain the existing redactions and withholdings.
Greenspan, through his FOIA lawsuit, is seeking to obtain unredacted records from the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys concerning what he describes as a 1990s narcotics investigation involving Tinubu.
The dispute also covers records associated with a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture case involving approximately $460,000 that Greenspan says was linked to Tinubu.
The latest filing does not itself resolve whether the disputed records will ultimately be released. The court is being asked to determine whether the agencies’ redactions and withholding of information are legally justified under the applicable FOIA and privacy provisions.
The case remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.