President Bola Tinubu has told a United States District Court for the District of Columbia why his unredacted records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should not be released to the public.


In filings by his lawyers, Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi published on Saturday, Tinubu advanced four main arguments against the disclosure request filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


First, he argued that the FOIA and the Privacy Act preclude disclosure of the records. 


Second, he maintained there is no public interest in the matter under US law. 


Third, he said there is no public interest that needs to be balanced against his privacy rights. 


Fourth, he contended that the plaintiff has ulterior motives for seeking documents bearing his name.


The request seeks, among other items, the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records from 1992 to 1993.


Background to the controversy

The matter traces back to a 1993 US civil forfeiture case in Illinois in which a court ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name. 


US authorities alleged the funds were proceeds of narcotics trafficking or involved in prohibited financial transactions.  


During the 2023 presidential election petition, the All Progressives Congress described the case as a civil forfeiture, not a criminal conviction. 


The Presidential Election Petition Court ruled in September 2023 that petitioners failed to prove Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in any US criminal case. 


Opposition parties and others have since continued efforts to obtain official US records relating to the President.


Tinubu’s legal arguments

Greenspan argued that the request concerns the sitting President of Nigeria and affects over 230 million people. 


Tinubu’s lawyers rejected this, saying the interest of Nigerians in the President’s background does not constitute a public interest recognised by US FOIA law. 


They also dismissed claims about his fitness for office as irrelevant under the statute.Citing FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information in law-enforcement records, the lawyers argued the redacted material is exempt from disclosure. 


They relied on the 1989 US Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which held that FOIA is meant to reveal “what the government is up to,” not private information about individuals accumulated in government files.


The team said Greenspan’s filings show a singular focus on obtaining documents containing Tinubu’s name for use in Nigerian politics. 


They described claims of a secret prosecution or non-prosecution agreement as speculative and unsupported by evidence, adding that unsubstantiated allegations do not justify disclosure of law-enforcement records identifying a private individual.


Tinubu’s lawyers further argued that his privacy interest has not been extinguished even though some information from the 1993 forfeiture became public. 


They said the earlier proceeding did not disclose details or the outcome of any possible criminal investigation.


They asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholdings.


In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the agencies to process the requested records (lifting earlier “Glomar” responses that neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records), subject to applicable exemptions. 


The FBI has since sought to withhold portions on grounds including privacy, investigative techniques and potential safety concerns.