President Bola Tinubu has given a United States District Court in Washington, D.C., four reasons why his unredacted records with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should not be released to the public.
In court filings submitted by his lawyers, Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi, Tinubu argued that the records are protected by the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, that there is no legally recognised public interest sufficient to override his privacy rights, that the request has a political dimension, and that claims being used to justify disclosure are speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The submission followed a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking the release of records relating to Tinubu under the US FOIA.
Greenspan has argued that his request concerns the sitting President of Nigeria and that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in information about a leader whose decisions affect more than 230 million people.
Tinubu’s lawyers rejected that argument, saying public interest in the President’s background does not constitute the type of public interest recognised under US freedom-of-information law.
The legal team also rejected the argument that the records could reveal information relevant to Tinubu’s fitness for office, maintaining that such an interest is not one that FOIA requires to be balanced against an individual’s privacy rights.
The lawyers relied on the US Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, arguing that FOIA is intended primarily to provide information about government activities rather than expose private information contained in government files.
They specifically cited FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records, arguing that the documents sought by Greenspan fall within the exemption.
Tinubu’s lawyers also challenged what they described as the political nature of the request, arguing that Greenspan’s filings demonstrate a focus on obtaining government documents containing the President’s name.
They further disputed claims that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu, describing such claims as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The lawyers maintained that Greenspan had failed to provide evidence of government wrongdoing that would justify overriding the privacy protections attached to law-enforcement records.
They also rejected the argument that Tinubu’s privacy interests had been extinguished because some information relating to historical US investigations had previously become public.
The legal team said the 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding and related affidavit did not disclose the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu, adding that previously public information does not automatically remove an individual’s privacy interest in information that remains undisclosed.
Among the records sought by Greenspan are the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records involving him from 1992 to 1993.
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s US law-enforcement history became a major political issue ahead of the 2023 presidential election after documents relating to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding surfaced.
A US District Court in Illinois had ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name after US authorities alleged that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were connected to prohibited financial transactions.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) maintained during the presidential election petition proceedings that the matter was a civil forfeiture case and not a criminal conviction.
The Labour Party and its then-presidential candidate, Peter Obi, argued that the forfeiture amounted to a disqualifying conviction under the Nigerian Constitution.
However, the Presidential Election Petition Court ruled in September 2023 that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their “Glomar” responses, under which the agencies had declined to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed, and directed them to process the requested records subject to applicable exemptions.
The FBI subsequently sought to keep portions of the records from public disclosure, citing exemptions relating to law enforcement, personal privacy, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals.
The ongoing FOIA case concerns access to US government records and does not itself constitute a criminal prosecution or establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
The latest development has nevertheless renewed calls from opposition groups for the records to be released.
African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi urged Tinubu to allow the records to be released, arguing that doing so would help clear his name.
Similarly, Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) National Publicity Secretary Osa Director said Nigerians deserved to know the truth and urged the President to support the release of the records.
While the opposition groups maintain that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in the records, Tinubu’s lawyers are asking the US court to uphold the redactions and withholding of the documents under US privacy and freedom-of-information laws.
