Date: September 25, 2026
Reporter: Emilly Jordan
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration has defended its decision to withhold portions of investigative records connected to a historical investigation involving Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, telling a federal court that disclosure could expose confidential sources, non-public investigative techniques and other sensitive law-enforcement information.
The position was contained in a September 23 filing by the U.S. government before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan. The case seeks records held by U.S. agencies relating to investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals.
The government filing concerns the DEA's use of exemptions under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to redact or withhold portions of its investigative records. The documents include DEA-6 reports, DEA-292 reports and DEA-210 reports, which the government described as similar types of investigative records.
Greenspan had challenged aspects of the DEA's Vaughn Index, a document agencies use to explain why particular records or portions of records are being withheld. The government argued that the repeated explanations in the index were appropriate because the records involved similar investigative documents and therefore were subject to similar exemptions.
One of the principal reasons cited by the DEA was the protection of confidential sources. According to a declaration submitted by the agency, information concerning confidential sources could reveal their identities if released.
The government also defended the DEA's reliance on FOIA Exemption 7(E), which allows certain law-enforcement information to be withheld when disclosure could reveal non-public investigative techniques or procedures. The government said the plaintiff had acknowledged that some non-public investigative details could be protected, although he challenged the government's handling of other portions of the records.
The filing said the material arose in the context of what the government described as a criminal investigation of a drug operation. However, the latest filing does not disclose the substantive contents of the withheld records. It does not identify confidential sources, reveal what they told investigators or establish what conclusions investigators reached about Tinubu.
The records are connected to a much older U.S. investigation involving Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele. Earlier court proceedings concerned requests for records relating to an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering investigation involving a Nigerian heroin-distribution organization that operated from approximately 1988 into the 1990s.
In an April 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell addressed the agencies' earlier use of a so-called Glomar response, under which a government agency can refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist. The judge concluded that the existence of the relevant investigation had already been officially acknowledged and that the government could not rely on that response in the circumstances of the case.
The litigation subsequently moved toward the identification, review and release of records that were not protected by FOIA exemptions. Earlier court proceedings have established that the requested records include material concerning Tinubu, but the existence of investigative records does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing by the Nigerian president.
The current dispute is therefore focused on access to government records and the extent to which U.S. law permits the agencies to keep portions of those records confidential.
The latest filing does not state how many of the withheld records specifically mention Tinubu. It also does not disclose whether confidential sources made allegations against him, what investigators concluded about him or whether the records contain evidence of criminal conduct.
Those distinctions are significant because the FOIA lawsuit is a civil records-disclosure proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. Other reporting on the case has likewise noted that the court proceedings have not established that Tinubu committed criminal wrongdoing.
The U.S. government's latest filing instead addresses the legal basis for protecting investigative information. The DEA maintains that confidential-source information deserves strong protection because disclosure could identify people who assisted law enforcement, while other withheld information could reveal investigative methods that authorities do not make public.
The court will ultimately determine what information, if any, must be released under the Freedom of Information Act and what material may lawfully remain protected under the exemptions invoked by the U.S. government.
For now, the September 23 filing provides additional information about why the DEA is resisting the release of parts of the records, but it does not make public the underlying contents of the records themselves.