President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States court to dismiss a motion seeking the release of additional records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning him.
Tinubu, through his lawyers, argued that claims of a secret criminal prosecution or government cover-up were unsupported by evidence, maintaining that the records being sought primarily concern his private affairs rather than the activities of US government agencies.
The response was filed on Friday, August 28, 2026, at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, opposing a motion for summary judgment filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.
Tinubu argued that Greenspan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were largely aimed at obtaining personal information about him for political purposes in Nigeria.
“Neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are ‘public interests’ that FOIA recognizes.”
The President also rejected Greenspan’s allegations of a concealed prosecution or conspiracy, arguing that the plaintiff had provided no evidence to substantiate the claims.
“The claim that there is some coverup conspiracy is unsubstantiated by actual evidence.”
Tinubu therefore urged the court to dismiss Greenspan’s motion and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their existing redactions and withholdings.
At the centre of the dispute is Tinubu’s argument that FOIA is intended to promote transparency regarding government activities and not provide access to private information about individuals contained in law-enforcement records.
He maintained that the records sought relate to events more than three decades old, when he was a private individual and not a public official.
“Plaintiff’s FOIA requests seek three decades old records pertaining to events that occurred when Intervenor was a student.”
Tinubu argued that his subsequent emergence as a political figure and President of Nigeria should not diminish his privacy rights over records concerning his earlier years.
Greenspan had initially submitted 12 FOIA requests seeking records concerning “Bola Ahmed Tinubu and associates” from several US agencies, including the Department of Justice, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency and DEA.
Eight requests involving the CIA, FBI and DEA subsequently remained in dispute. The court upheld the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records but ordered the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt documents.
The agencies later released thousands of pages, including redacted documents and a Vaughn index setting out the legal basis for information withheld.
Greenspan subsequently sought summary judgment, arguing that he could not recall seeing Tinubu’s name on any of the released pages.
Tinubu countered that Greenspan’s complaint showed that the litigation was primarily focused on obtaining documents bearing his name rather than examining the conduct of the FBI or DEA.
The President also challenged Greenspan’s argument that disclosure was justified by the public interest in determining his “fitness for office.”
He maintained that FOIA does not recognise such an interest as sufficient to override privacy protections applicable to law-enforcement records.
“The asserted ‘public interest in Tinubu’s own fitness for office’ is not an interest FOIA recognizes or one that needs to be balanced.”
Tinubu further disputed Greenspan’s claim that information relating to a 1993 forfeiture proceeding was already publicly available.
He argued that the proceeding and an associated Moss Affidavit did not reveal the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation, maintaining that Greenspan’s case was aimed at obtaining information that had not previously been made public.
The President also rejected the argument that Nigerians’ interest in his background justified disclosure, saying public curiosity about the background or fitness of a serving foreign president was distinct from the public interest recognised under US FOIA.
“The record is clear that Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are focused on the individual and are not intended to discover anything about the agency.”
Tinubu consequently asked the court to reject Greenspan’s challenges to the FBI’s searches, the DEA’s Vaughn index and other document-specific withholdings, while allowing the agencies to retain redactions and withhold information protected under US privacy laws.
