President Bola Tinubu has given four reasons why his unredacted records with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration should not be released to the public.
The President made the submission through his lawyers in filings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents were published on Saturday.
Tinubu’s legal team argued that US privacy laws protect the records from disclosure. The lawyers also said the request did not meet the public-interest requirements under the US Freedom of Information Act. The President further argued that the request was driven by political motives and sought access to private information about him.
Tinubu gives reasons for withholding records
The legal team, comprising Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi, filed the response after American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan asked for the records. Greenspan had sought access to Tinubu’s records under the US Freedom of Information Act. He argued that the request involved the sitting Nigerian President and was therefore a matter of public interest.
However, Tinubu’s lawyers rejected that argument. They said the interest of Nigerians in the President’s background did not amount to the type of public interest recognised under US law. The lawyers also disputed the claim that the records could help determine Tinubu’s fitness for office. They maintained that such an interest was not one that the FOIA requires authorities to balance against privacy rights.
Lawyers cite privacy protections
Tinubu’s legal team also relied on privacy provisions in the FOIA and the US Privacy Act. The lawyers argued that the requested records were protected under FOIA Exemption 7(C). The exemption covers personal information contained in law-enforcement records.
They also cited a 1989 US Supreme Court decision involving the Department of Justice and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. According to the lawyers, FOIA exists mainly to provide information about government activities. They argued that it does not give the public unrestricted access to private information kept in government files. The legal team therefore asked the court to reject Greenspan’s request for the unredacted records.
‘Records being sought for Nigerian politics’
Tinubu’s lawyers also questioned Greenspan’s motives. They argued that his filings showed a strong interest in obtaining documents that contained the President’s name. The lawyers said the request appeared connected to political issues in Nigeria. They maintained that FOIA should not become a means of obtaining private information about an individual because of his political position.
They also rejected claims that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu. According to the legal team, those claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The lawyers said allegations alone could not justify releasing law-enforcement records concerning an individual.
Tinubu disputes argument over past records
The President’s lawyers also challenged the argument that his privacy rights had ended because some information about the historical investigation was already public. Greenspan had pointed to the 1993 US civil forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
However, the legal team said the forfeiture case did not reveal the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving the President. The lawyers maintained that previously disclosed information did not automatically remove Tinubu’s privacy interest in records that remained undisclosed.
They consequently asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment. They also asked the court to allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and continue withholding protected records. Among the documents sought are the entire FBI file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records from 1992 to 1993.
What happened in the 1993 case?
The controversy over Tinubu’s US law-enforcement history became prominent during the build-up to the 2023 presidential election. At the time, documents relating to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding became public. A US District Court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
US authorities alleged that the funds represented proceeds from narcotics trafficking or were connected to prohibited financial transactions. The APC, however, argued during the presidential election petition proceedings that the matter was a civil forfeiture case and did not amount to a criminal conviction.
The Labour Party and its presidential candidate at the time, Peter Obi, took a different position. They argued that the forfeiture amounted to a disqualifying conviction under the Nigerian Constitution. In September 2023, the Presidential Election Petition Court held that the petitioners had failed to prove that Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.
US court orders agencies to process records
The legal dispute over the records continued after the 2023 election. In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their “Glomar” responses. The agencies had previously declined to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.
The court also directed the agencies to process the requested records while applying any relevant exemptions. The FBI later sought to withhold parts of the records. It cited exemptions covering law-enforcement information, privacy, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals.
The current FOIA case concerns access to US government records. It does not, by itself, amount to a criminal prosecution or establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
Opposition parties demand disclosure
Meanwhile, opposition parties have criticised Tinubu’s decision to oppose the release of the records. The African Democratic Congress spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, urged the President to allow the records to become public.
“Why is the President opposing the release of his past records? That is suspicious. The President should allow them (records) to be released to clear himself. The President should come out clean. He should be the one calling for the records to be released if he has nothing to hide because this is not good for him and the image of the country,” he said.
Similarly, the Nigeria Democratic Congress National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, said Nigerians deserved to know the truth about the matter. Director argued that describing the request as politically motivated was not enough reason to prevent the records from being released.
He said the issue had remained unresolved for decades and urged Tinubu to clear the air by allowing the relevant records to become public. The legal battle will now determine whether the FBI and DEA can continue withholding the records under the privacy and law-enforcement exemptions cited by Tinubu’s legal team.
