The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a United States court to allow it to file a confidential explanation for withholding some records linked to allegations concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and a past drug-trafficking investigation.
The request was contained in an application filed on August 20 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The FBI said it was seeking permission to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration to explain privately to the judge why certain information cannot be released publicly.
An ex parte, in camera declaration is a submission made privately to a judge for consideration without being placed on the public court record.
The application was published on X on Thursday by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently engaged by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
According to the FBI, it has relied on several exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in responding to requests for records concerning Tinubu from 1992 to 1993.
The agency said releasing some of the withheld information could expose law enforcement techniques and potentially put individuals at risk.
The FBI stated that disclosure “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.”
One of the FOIA requests, identified as Request Number 1588244-000, sought the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu, identified in the request as Nigeria’s President-Elect as of February 2023.
A second request, numbered 1593615-000, sought FBI 302 interview records involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
The FBI said it had invoked FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) in relation to the requests.
The agency further told the court that it could not publicly disclose the full basis for relying on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) for some of the withheld material.
It therefore asked the court for permission to file the explanation under seal.
If granted, the FBI said it would submit the confidential declaration explaining the basis for withholding the information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American entrepreneur and founder of PlainSite.
The latest development comes after the US Department of Justice recently sought an additional 10 days to respond to a court order concerning the release of records relating to allegations of drug trafficking involving Tinubu.
However, Judge Beryl Howell granted only a four-day extension, moving the deadline to August 21.
Tinubu, through his legal team, subsequently joined the DOJ’s request for the additional 10-day extension, but Howell reportedly rejected the request.
Greenspan filed 12 FOIA requests with six US federal agencies between 2022 and 2023, seeking records relating to criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
The requests sought investigative records concerning four individuals whom Greenspan alleged were associated with the drug ring: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the agencies responded , declining to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed.
Greenspan challenged the responses before the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, but the office upheld the agencies’ position.
He subsequently filed a lawsuit on June 12, 2023, challenging the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the records.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State were initially named as defendants, while the CIA was later added to the case.
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the Glomar responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted.”
The judge found that the agencies had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
Howell also held that the agencies had not provided adequate evidence to justify maintaining their Glomar responses.