The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., for permission to privately submit additional explanations for its decision to withhold certain records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The request was contained in a four-page motion filed on August 20, 2026, in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving Aaron Greenspan and the U.S. government before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.
The FBI wants to submit the declarations “ex parte” and “in camera,” meaning the materials would be presented privately to the judge and kept under seal rather than made available publicly.
The agency said the confidential submission was necessary because publicly disclosing the full basis for withholding some of the information could expose sensitive law-enforcement details.
The records sought by Greenspan include Tinubu’s FBI file and FBI interview records dating back to the 1990s.
One of the FOIA requests, identified as 1588244-000, sought the entire FBI file relating to Tinubu, while another request, 1593615-000, sought FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU between 1992 and 1993.
The FBI said it had relied on several exemptions under the FOIA in withholding portions of the records, including exemptions relating to personal privacy, confidential law-enforcement information, investigative techniques and potential threats to an individual’s safety.
According to the agency, it could not provide the court with the complete justification for invoking exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) on the public record.
“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 in its filing.
The FBI specifically cited concerns that disclosure of some of the withheld information could reveal law-enforcement techniques and procedures or information that could “reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
FBI plans two confidential declarations
If the court grants the request, the FBI said it expects to submit two confidential declarations by August 28.
The agency said one declaration would be attached as an exhibit to the other and both would be submitted under seal for the judge’s private review as part of the government’s request for summary judgment.
Greenspan, the plaintiff in the case, has opposed the FBI’s request.
Court documents show that the parties discussed the request on August 19, after which Greenspan informed the government that he opposed the proposed confidential procedure.
The motion was filed on behalf of the United States by government lawyers, including U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro and Assistant U.S. Attorney Samantha-Josephine Baker.
However, the filing does not show that Judge Howell had approved or signed the proposed order at the time it was submitted.
Records date back to 1990s investigation
The FOIA dispute is part of a legal battle that has lasted more than three years over the release of U.S. government records concerning investigations involving Tinubu.
The records have attracted renewed attention because of their reported connection to a 1990s investigation into a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking network and a subsequent civil forfeiture involving $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
Previous U.S. court records and affidavits cited in reports on the case have linked the investigation to individuals accused by U.S. authorities of operating a heroin-trafficking network in Chicago between 1988 and 1991.
According to those records, U.S. authorities investigated financial accounts allegedly connected to the drug operation and obtained a court order in January 1992 freezing more than $1.4 million in accounts linked to Tinubu.
In October 1993, a U.S. District Court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name. The government alleged that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were connected to transactions that violated U.S. money-laundering laws.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing and has rejected allegations linking him personally to drug trafficking.
His lawyers have maintained that the forfeiture case was a civil in rem proceeding, meaning the legal action was directed at the money rather than brought as a criminal prosecution against Tinubu.
They have also pointed out that Tinubu was not arrested, indicted, arraigned or criminally convicted of a drug offence in the United States.
FBI filing does not establish wrongdoing
The latest FBI motion does not establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
Rather, the filing concerns the FBI’s request to provide additional confidential justification for withholding portions of records under the FOIA.
If approved, the judge would privately examine the FBI’s explanations and determine whether the agency’s reliance on the exemptions is legally justified.
The development nevertheless adds another layer to the long-running dispute over the release of records concerning the Nigerian president.
The case has also attracted political attention ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election, as Tinubu prepares to seek re-election and opposition figures position themselves for the contest.
The application was reportedly publicised on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm that has been engaged by former Vice President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar.
For now, the FBI is asking the court to allow it to make its case privately, with the judge expected to determine whether the confidential declarations are necessary and whether the agency’s withholding of the records complies with U.S. freedom-of-information law.
