The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court in Washington, DC, for permission to submit a confidential declaration explaining why it is withholding some records relating to allegations linking President Bola Tinubu to a drug-trafficking investigation.
Gatekeepers News reports that the request was contained in an application dated August 20 and filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The FBI said it could not publicly disclose the full reasons for withholding some of the information and asked the court to allow it to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration under seal.
An ex parte, in camera declaration is a submission made privately to a judge for consideration without being placed on the public record.
The application was published on X on Thursday by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
According to the FBI, it invoked several exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in response to requests for records relating to Tinubu from 1992 to 1993.
The agency said releasing the withheld 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.”
Part of the FBI’s application reads:
“One of the requests at issue is the request assigned Request Number 1588244-000, which sought ‘[t]he entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023’.”
It added:
“Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the FBI seeking ‘FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993’.”
The second request was assigned Request Number 1593615-000.
The FBI said it had invoked FOIA exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) in relation to the requests.
It said the information withheld, if disclosed, could reveal law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures or potentially endanger an individual.
“The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
The agency said that if the court granted its application, it would submit the confidential declaration explaining the basis for withholding the information by August 28.
Background to the case
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American businessman and founder of PlainSite.
The development followed a request by the US Department of Justice for an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records linked to allegations involving Tinubu.
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, but Howell declined the request.
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 FOIA requests with six US federal agencies seeking records relating to investigations into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
He sought records concerning four individuals whom he said 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.
Greenspan challenged the responses before the 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 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 (DEA), Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State were initially named as defendants.
The Central Intelligence Agency was later added as a defendant in the first amended complaint.
In April 2025, Howell ruled that the responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted”.
The judge held that the two agencies had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest to justify keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of a criminal investigation.
Howell also ruled that the FBI and DEA had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify maintaining their Glomar responses.
