FBI explains why Tinubu’s record can’t be released, asks US court to keep some records secret

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has asked a federal court in Washington, DC, for permission to keep parts of records connected to an old investigation involving Nigerian President Bola Tinubu out of the public domain.

In a motion filed on August 20, the FBI asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to allow it to provide the judge with additional explanations privately and under seal, arguing that publicly disclosing the information could expose sensitive law-enforcement methods and potentially put individuals at risk.

The request is part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act battle brought by Aaron Greenspan, founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, over records connected to a Chicago-based drug trafficking investigation dating to the early 1990s.

The latest development was also publicised by Washington lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, which was recently retained by African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar. The firm has been highlighting developments in the case involving the records sought by Greenspan.

FBI wants judge to see the sensitive details privately

The FBI wants to submit the additional explanation ex parte and in camera.

In practical terms, that means the agency would provide the material directly to the judge without making it available to the other parties or placing the sensitive details in the publicly accessible court record.

The bureau argues that even explaining publicly why certain information must remain secret could itself reveal the very investigative techniques or sensitive information it is attempting to protect.

The agency is relying, among other provisions, on FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), which cover certain law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger someone's physical safety.

The FBI says its existing public filings cannot fully explain the basis for those exemptions without exposing the protected information.

If the court grants the request, the bureau intends to submit its confidential declaration by August 28.

What records is Greenspan seeking?

The dispute centres on two FBI requests concerning Tinubu.

One seeks the FBI's entire file relating to Tinubu, while another asks for FBI Form 302 interview records involving him in connection with FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during 1992 and 1993. Court records confirm that Greenspan specifically sought those interview reports.

Greenspan's broader FOIA campaign involved 12 requests submitted to six federal agencies between 2022 and 2023. The requests concerned four individuals: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

The records are connected to a federal investigation into an international heroin-trafficking and money-laundering operation in the early 1990s.

The case has already produced a major court ruling

The latest FBI filing comes after a significant development in April 2025.

US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration could no longer rely on their earlier Glomar responses to refuse to confirm or deny whether certain Tinubu-related records existed.

A Glomar response allows a US agency to say that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of requested records where acknowledging their existence could itself cause legally protected harm.

Judge Howell found the FBI and DEA's Glomar positions improper in relation to the disputed Tinubu records and ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt material. The judge nevertheless upheld the CIA's Glomar response in relation to Tinubu.

That ruling did not mean that every document concerning Tinubu had to be released without redactions. Rather, it required the agencies to deal with the FOIA requests in accordance with the court's ruling and determine what material could lawfully be disclosed.

What the latest filing does—and does not—show

The FBI's latest request is significant, but it should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the agency is withholding damaging information about Tinubu.

The bureau is specifically arguing that some material requires protection because of investigative techniques, law-enforcement interests and personal safety concerns.

Nor does the filing, by itself, establish the substance of whatever information may be contained in the withheld records.

The underlying case has generated considerable political interest in Nigeria because of questions surrounding Tinubu's activities in the United States in the early 1990s. The April 2025 court ruling established that federal agencies could not simply use a blanket Glomar response to avoid addressing certain requests, but the court has not publicly declared that the president was guilty of a crime based on these records.

The immediate issue is therefore narrower but potentially consequential: whether the FBI can persuade the judge that portions of the long-running investigation must remain shielded from public disclosure, and how much of the underlying material will ultimately become public.

For now, the judge—not the FBI, Tinubu's political opponents or the Nigerian government—will have the final say on how much of the disputed material can be released.