President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a request seeking the release of unredacted records concerning him held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
In filings submitted to the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the President’s lawyers gave four major reasons why the records should not be made public.
The legal team argued that the documents are protected under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, that there is no legally recognised public interest requiring their disclosure, that there is no competing public interest to balance against Tinubu’s privacy rights, and that the request appears to have political motives.
The filings were made in response to a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking access to records relating to Tinubu under the US FOIA.
Among the documents requested are the “entire FBI file” on the Nigerian President and FBI Form 302 interview records involving him between 1992 and 1993.
Tinubu’s lawyers — Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi — argued that FOIA was not created to provide personal information about private individuals simply because such information exists in government files.
They relied on a 1989 US Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which they said established that FOIA is primarily concerned with revealing what government agencies are doing.
The lawyers also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records.
They rejected Greenspan’s argument that Nigerians’ interest in Tinubu’s background amounted to a public interest recognised by US law.
Greenspan had argued that the request deserved particular attention because it concerned the sitting President of Nigeria and a country with more than 230 million people whose lives are directly affected by his decisions.
But Tinubu’s legal team maintained that the President’s political position did not eliminate his privacy rights.
They also challenged what they described as the political nature of Greenspan’s request, arguing that his filings showed an overwhelming interest in obtaining documents carrying Tinubu’s name.
The lawyers further dismissed suggestions that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.
They described such claims as speculative and said Greenspan had not produced evidence of government wrongdoing sufficient to overcome the privacy protections attached to law-enforcement records.
The legal team also argued that previously published information concerning Tinubu did not automatically remove his right to privacy over information that had not been publicly disclosed.
The latest development is connected to a long-running controversy over Tinubu’s history with US law-enforcement agencies.
The issue became a major political talking point ahead of the 2023 presidential election following the emergence of documents relating to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States.
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 money represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was involved in prohibited financial transactions.
The APC subsequently maintained during the presidential election petition proceedings that the case was a civil forfeiture matter and not a criminal conviction.
The Labour Party and its presidential candidate at the time, Peter Obi, argued otherwise, claiming that the forfeiture amounted to a disqualifying conviction.
However, the Presidential Election Petition Court ruled in September 2023 that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.
Interest in the records continued after the election litigation.
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.
The agencies were subsequently directed to process the records subject to applicable legal exemptions.
The FBI has since sought to keep portions of the documents from public disclosure, citing protections relating to law enforcement, privacy, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals.
Reacting to Tinubu’s latest position, opposition groups in Nigeria called on the President to allow the records to be released.
African Democratic Congress spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi described the President’s opposition to the disclosure as suspicious and argued that Tinubu should welcome the release if the records would clear his name.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, also maintained that Nigerians deserved to know the truth.
Director rejected the argument that the request was merely politically motivated, saying the controversy had persisted for more than two decades and should be resolved.
The ongoing US case concerns access to government records under FOIA and does not itself amount to a criminal prosecution or constitute a finding that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
