The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a United States court for permission to privately explain why it withheld certain investigative records relating to allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Tinubu.
In a motion filed on August 20, the FBI requested permission to submit an ex parte in camera declaration to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Such a declaration is a written statement presented privately to a judge without being placed on the public record.
The agency said it could not disclose all the reasons for withholding some of the requested records publicly, making the confidential submission necessary.
A copy of the application was shared on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently engaged by former Vice-President and 2027 African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar.
The FBI said it had relied on several exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in responding to requests for records concerning Tinubu from 1992 and 1993.
According to the agency, releasing some of the information “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual”.
The FBI’s application stated that one of the requests, numbered 1588244-000, sought “[t]he entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023”.
It said a second FOIA request, assigned Request Number 1593615-000, sought “FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993”.
The FBI said it had applied FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) to the requests.
It further stated that disclosure of the withheld information could expose law-enforcement investigative methods and potentially “endanger the life or physical safety of any individual”.
The agency argued that it could not publicly provide the complete basis for relying on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), and therefore asked the court to allow it to make the explanation under seal.
The FBI said that, if the court approves the request, it would submit the confidential declaration explaining its reasons for withholding the information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American entrepreneur and founder of PlainSite.
The development follows a recent request by the US Department of Justice for an additional 10 days to respond to a court order concerning the release of records connected to allegations of drug trafficking involving Tinubu.
Judge Beryl Howell granted the Justice Department only four additional days, extending the deadline to August 21.
Tinubu, through his legal representatives, subsequently joined the DOJ’s request for the additional 10-day extension, but Howell reportedly rejected his request.
The case
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted 12 FOIA requests to six US federal agencies seeking records from criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin ring that operated during the early 1990s.
The requests sought investigative records concerning four individuals allegedly linked to the drug operation, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the agencies responded that they could neither confirm nor deny whether the requested records existed.
Greenspan challenged the responses before the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP).
The OIP 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 what is known as a Glomar response. This refers to a situation where a US government agency refuses to confirm or deny whether requested records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and Department of State were initially listed as defendants. The CIA was later added in an amended complaint.
In April 2025, Howell ruled that the responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted”.
She held that the two agencies had failed to provide sufficient information to “establish cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation”.
Howell also ruled that the agencies had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for maintaining their Glomar responses.