FBI Asks US Court to Keep Records on Alleged Tinubu Drug Trafficking Probe Secret
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has asked a United States court for permission to submit a confidential declaration explaining why it is withholding some records relating to allegations linking President Bola Tinubu to an alleged drug trafficking investigation.
The FBI made the request in an application dated August 20, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, saying it could not publicly disclose the full reasons for withholding certain information.
The agency is seeking to file an ex parte, in camera declaration, which is a submission made privately to a judge for consideration without being placed on the public record.
The application was published on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
The FBI said it had invoked various exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act in response to requests for records relating to Tinubu covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
According to the agency, releasing the withheld information could disclose law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures and could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
One of the requests, identified as Request Number 1588244-000, sought the entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, while a second request, numbered 1593615-000, sought FBI 302 interview records involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the 1992–1993 period.
The FBI said it had invoked Freedom of Information Act exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) in relation to the requests.
The agency said the information withheld from the plaintiff, if disclosed, could, among other things, reveal investigative techniques and procedures and potentially endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
The FBI further told the court that it could not provide on the public record the full basis for invoking exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) for certain withheld information, making an ex parte, sealed declaration necessary.
The agency said that if the court granted its request, it would submit the confidential declaration explaining the reasons for withholding the information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American businessman and founder of PlainSite.
The latest development came after the US Department of Justice sought an additional 10 day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records linked to allegations involving Tinubu. However, Judge Beryl Howell granted only four additional days, moving the deadline to August 21.
Tinubu, through his legal team, subsequently joined the DOJ’s request for an additional 10 day extension. Howell, however, declined the request for the longer extension.
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 Freedom of Information Act requests with six US federal agencies, seeking records from investigations into an alleged Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
He sought records concerning four individuals whom he alleged were linked to the drug ring, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Adegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the agencies responded that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan approached the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, according to court documents.
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the agencies’ use of what is known as a Glomar response to his FOIA requests.
A Glomar response is an official refusal by a US government agency to confirm or deny whether requested records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State were initially named as defendants, while the Central Intelligence Agency was later added as a defendant in the first amended complaint.
In April 2025, Howell ruled that the Glomar responses issued by the FBI and DEA were improper and should be lifted.
The judge held that the agencies had failed to establish sufficient grounds for keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been a subject of an alleged criminal investigation.
Howell also held that the FBI and DEA had not provided sufficient evidence to justify maintaining their Glomar responses.
The case remains focused on whether records sought under the Freedom of Information Act should be released, with the FBI now asking the court to allow it to privately explain why some of the information should remain withheld.
Source: Punch