- President Bola Tinubu filed a response in a US district court arguing that records sought by a researcher are protected under US privacy law
- The case stems from FOIA requests filed by Aaron Greenspan seeking FBI and DEA files linked to a Chicago drug-involvement investigation from the early 1990s
- Tinubu’s lawyers argued that personal curiosity about a foreign leader does not meet the legal threshold for public interest under FOIA
President Bola Tinubu has urged a United States federal court to reject demands for the release of investigative records that allegedly concern him, insisting that the documents are shielded by US privacy law.
Tinubu, participating in the case as an intervenor, filed his response on Friday at the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Through his lawyers, he asked the court to deny a motion for summary judgement brought by Aaron Greenspan, founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, and to allow existing redactions and withheld material in documents already produced by the FBI and DEA to stand.
Background to the FOIA case
Greenspan filed 12 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with six US federal agencies between 2022 and 2023, seeking records tied to a Chicago gang network that operated in the early 1990s. The requests named Tinubu alongside three others: Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele. Among the materials Greenspan sought was the “entire FBI file” on the Nigerian president and interview records from 1992 to 1993.
Several agencies initially refused to confirm or deny whether relevant records existed. In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA had not adequately justified those refusals and ordered both agencies to search for and process non-exempt records. The CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny was, however, upheld. The agencies subsequently produced thousands of documents, some with redactions, and submitted a Vaughn index explaining the basis for certain withholdings. Greenspan then asked the court to compel further disclosure, arguing the releases fell short of what his requests required.
Tinubu’s privacy arguments
Tinubu’s legal team pushed back on several fronts. They argued that FOIA exists to expose how government agencies conduct their work, not to give members of the public access to personal information about private individuals that happens to sit inside government files. Citing a 1989 US Supreme Court decision, they said disclosure of such records typically reveals little about the workings of government.
According to The Cable, the lawyers also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law-enforcement records where release could amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, alongside the US Privacy Act.
On Greenspan’s argument that Howell’s 2025 ruling had stripped Tinubu of any remaining privacy interest, the filing drew a distinction between the president’s interest in keeping secret the fact of an investigation and his separate interest in the contents of any investigative files. Tinubu’s team said the earlier ruling addressed only the first question, leaving the second unresolved.
The lawyers also challenged the suggestion that Tinubu’s position as Nigeria’s head of state created a public interest in disclosure, saying that personal curiosity about an individual’s background or fitness for office does not satisfy the legal definition of public interest under FOIA. They described claims of a cover-up or secret prosecution as “unsubstantiated allegations” that cannot justify releasing law-enforcement records about a named individual.
Tinubu has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with the allegations linked to the case.
Source: Legit.ng