Date: September 28, 2026
Reporter: Emilly Jordan
Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to prevent the broader release of FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration records connected to historical U.S. investigations involving him, arguing that the documents contain private information that should remain protected under American law.
The dispute is part of a long-running Freedom of Information Act case brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who has sought records from U.S. government agencies concerning investigations involving Tinubu during the early 1990s. The case is not a criminal prosecution of the Nigerian president. No U.S. court has found Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking, and Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing. Nigeria's presidency has described the current proceeding as a civil records-disclosure dispute.
Greenspan's requests include the FBI's file on Tinubu and FBI interview records from 1992 and 1993. The requests are connected to U.S. investigations involving a Chicago-based heroin trafficking network and a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in which about $460,000 held in an account associated with Tinubu was forfeited to the U.S. government.
Tinubu's lawyers intervened in the FOIA litigation to protect what they describe as his privacy interests. In a 16-page filing dated August 28, his legal team asked U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell to reject Greenspan's request for additional disclosure and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain redactions and withholdings in the records.
A central argument in the filing concerns Tinubu's status at the time of the events described in the records. His lawyers argued that the information concerned him as a private individual and that he retained privacy protections over decades-old investigative records.
The filing stated that Tinubu “was not a public official in 1993” and characterized the records as concerning events that occurred when he was a student. That assertion has subsequently attracted scrutiny because Tinubu was elected to Nigeria's Senate in 1992, representing Lagos West Senatorial District, and therefore was a public officeholder during 1993.
The discrepancy is significant because Tinubu's lawyers are relying partly on his status at the time to argue that the records deserve strong privacy protection. The available materials, however, do not establish whether the statement resulted from an error by counsel, a particular legal characterization of Tinubu's status, or another explanation. Claims that the filing was deliberately false remain an allegation rather than a judicial finding.
The lawyers also invoked privacy protections under the Freedom of Information Act, particularly Exemption 7(C), which permits withholding certain law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
They argued that the fact that some information concerning the 1993 forfeiture may already be publicly known does not eliminate Tinubu's privacy interest in the undisclosed contents of government investigative files.
The case has also raised questions about the U.S. Privacy Act. Tinubu's lawyers cited the law as an additional basis for protecting personal information. The precise applicability of that statute to a Nigerian citizen who is not a U.S. citizen is a legal issue that would depend on the circumstances and the court's interpretation; the available reporting does not establish that Tinubu is claiming U.S. citizenship.
The broader FOIA dispute began after Greenspan submitted requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking historical records. The agencies initially relied on what is known as a “Glomar response,” under which an agency neither confirms nor denies whether particular records exist when confirming their existence could itself reveal protected information.
Judge Howell subsequently rejected the government's earlier position that it could simply refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records. In April 2025, she ruled that the FBI and DEA's use of the Glomar response was not logical or plausible given previous official disclosures concerning investigations involving Tinubu.
The litigation has since focused on which records can legally be released and which portions may remain withheld under FOIA exemptions.
The FBI recently submitted hundreds of pages of records to Judge Howell for private review. According to reporting on the case, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages, with portions redacted under various FOIA exemptions. The records were submitted to the court under seal for an in-camera review, meaning the judge could examine the material privately without immediately making it available to the parties or the public.
The FBI had previously asked permission to provide confidential declarations to the court explaining why certain information should remain withheld. The agency cited exemptions involving personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative techniques and other law-enforcement concerns. It also argued that disclosure of some information could potentially endanger an individual's life or physical safety.
The historical records are connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture involving approximately $460,000. Tinubu's legal position has been that the forfeiture was a civil proceeding against money rather than a criminal prosecution against him personally. His lawyers have emphasized that he was not arrested, indicted, arraigned or criminally convicted of a drug offence in the United States.
The existence of the forfeiture and investigative records does not by itself establish that Tinubu committed drug trafficking or another criminal offence. The current lawsuit is principally about whether U.S. government agencies must disclose additional historical records under FOIA and whether the exemptions invoked by the agencies and Tinubu's lawyers permit those records to remain confidential.
The latest filing has nevertheless intensified attention on Tinubu's history in the United States because the requested records could potentially provide additional information about the investigations conducted during the early 1990s.
The legal dispute also places the court in the position of balancing competing interests: Greenspan's argument for public access to government records, the government's statutory authority to withhold protected law-enforcement information, and Tinubu's claim that disclosure would improperly invade his privacy.
For now, the records submitted privately to Judge Howell have not all been made public. The court must determine which portions, if any, are subject to further disclosure and whether the FBI and DEA properly relied on the exemptions they have cited.
The dispute therefore remains a records-access case rather than a criminal trial against Nigeria's president. Any conclusions about the contents of records that remain sealed would be premature until the court determines what information can legally be released.