The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., for permission to privately explain why it is withholding some records sought in connection with historical US investigations involving Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In an application filed on August 20, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the FBI asked the court to allow it to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration—a confidential filing reviewed privately by the judge and not placed on the public docket—to set out the full basis for withholding certain information.
The agency said publicly disclosing its complete justification could itself reveal sensitive law-enforcement information.
According to the FBI, the records are covered by several exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The agency said releasing some of the material could disclose law-enforcement investigative techniques and procedures and “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
One of the FOIA requests, identified as Request No. 1588244-000, seeks what was described as the “entire FBI file” concerning Tinubu, including records associated with the period when he was Nigeria’s president-elect in 2023.
A second request, according to the FBI’s filing, seeks FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu in connection with FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-U, covering the period from 1992 to 1993. That request was assigned No. 1593615-000.
The FBI said that, if the court grants its request, it will submit the confidential declaration explaining its position by August 28.
A Case Dating Back to 2023
The latest development is part of a long-running FOIA battle brought by American transparency advocate and PlainSite founder Aaron Greenspan.
Greenspan filed the federal lawsuit in June 2023 after several US agencies declined to confirm or deny whether they possessed records responsive to his requests. The litigation concerns records relating to historical US investigations into alleged international drug trafficking and money laundering dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Greenspan’s requests involved Tinubu and three other individuals: Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Adegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
The agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of certain records is known as a “Glomar response,” a mechanism used in FOIA cases when acknowledging whether records exist could itself reveal information protected from disclosure.
Greenspan challenged those responses through the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy before ultimately taking the matter to court.
Court Battle Intensifies
The FBI’s latest filing comes amid mounting pressure on US authorities over the disclosure of the records.
Earlier this month, US District Judge Beryl Howell granted the Justice Department only four additional days to respond to a court order concerning the records, after the department had sought a 10-day extension. The new deadline was set for August 21.
The dispute has attracted renewed political attention in Nigeria following the involvement of Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, which has been retained by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar. The firm has publicly campaigned for greater disclosure of US records relating to the historical matter and has circulated documents concerning the case to officials in Washington.
Recent reports have also noted that Tinubu joined the Justice Department’s request for additional time in the proceedings, although Judge Howell did not grant the full extension sought.
What the Records Could—and Could Not—Establish
The renewed disclosure battle has generated headlines referring to “Tinubu drug-trafficking records.” However, the legal proceedings themselves concern government records sought under FOIA, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
A 2025 opinion from the US District Court for the District of Columbia described Greenspan’s case as a request for criminal investigative documents that he said were generated during a federal investigation into an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering ring in the early 1990s.
The historical US proceedings also included a civil forfeiture case, rather than a criminal conviction of Tinubu for drug trafficking. Consequently, the existence of investigative records—or the FBI’s decision to withhold some of them—should not by itself be presented as proof that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
For now, the central question before the court is narrower but potentially consequential: how much of the requested material can legally be disclosed to the public, and how much can the US government continue to withhold under FOIA exemptions?
The FBI’s request for a secret declaration adds another layer to that increasingly closely watched legal battle.
