President tells federal court that disclosure of investigative files could violate his privacy as transparency activist presses for records dating back to the 1990s…..
President Bola Tinubu has asked a federal court in the United States to stop the release of records held by American law-enforcement agencies concerning past investigations allegedly linked to him.
Tinubu’s legal team is challenging efforts by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain documents from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The dispute is playing out in a U.S. federal court in a case that has drawn renewed attention to records connected to allegations surrounding Tinubu’s activities in the United States more than three decades ago.
Greenspan is seeking extensive records, including what he describes as the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview reports relating to the period between 1992 and 1993.
He is also seeking documents associated with a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 that was allegedly connected to Tinubu.
In a 16-page filing submitted to the court, Tinubu’s lawyers Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi argued that the requested records should remain protected from disclosure because releasing investigative material could infringe on the president’s privacy rights.
The lawyers maintained that previous disclosures linked to the forfeiture proceeding did not amount to a public release of the details of any possible criminal investigation or its outcome.
They argued that Greenspan’s request was, in effect, an attempt to obtain information that is not already available in the public record.
According to the filing, the fact that some information about an individual may have appeared in public records does not automatically eliminate that person’s privacy interest in the government’s broader investigative files.
The lawyers cited a number of U.S. court decisions, including a Supreme Court ruling, to support their argument that individuals can retain privacy protections over government records even where portions of the underlying information may have previously been disclosed.
Tinubu’s team further argued that knowing an individual was investigated is legally distinct from gaining access to the contents of investigative files.
They cited a decision involving the Department of Justice in which a court recognised that individuals could retain privacy interests in the details of an investigation even when their names had already appeared in publicly available material.
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” Tinubu’s lawyers argued.
The president’s intervention comes as Greenspan challenges the adequacy of the U.S. agencies’ response to his FOIA requests.
His filings reportedly question the FBI’s search for responsive records, the DEA’s Vaughn Index a document used to explain why particular records are being withheld as well as the agencies’ handling of redactions, segregability and various FOIA exemptions.
Tinubu’s lawyers, however, argued that those issues should be considered against what they described as Greenspan’s broader objective of obtaining government records simply because they contain Tinubu’s name.
The legal team urged the court not to allow the FOIA process to become a means of searching government files for information about a private individual where the records are otherwise protected by applicable exemptions.
“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers argued.
The filing specifically points to FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Tinubu’s lawyers are asking the court to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain the redactions and withholding of records they have already made.
The court’s eventual decision could determine how much, if any, of the requested FBI and DEA material becomes public and potentially shed further light on records surrounding the decades-old U.S. proceedings that Greenspan is seeking.
