The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a US court 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.
The FBI made the request in an application dated August 20 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, saying it could not publicly disclose the full reasons for withholding certain information.
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.
The FBI said it had invoked various exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act in response to requests for records relating to Tinubu from 1992 to 1993.
According to the agency, 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”.
“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”.
“This was assigned Request Number 1593615-000. The FBI has invoked various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions, including 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) regarding these requests, and determined the information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed, 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.
“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 FBI said that if the court granted its request, it would submit the confidential declaration explaining the reasons for withholding the information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American businessman and founder of PlainSite.
The development came after the US Department of Justice sought an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records linked to allegations involving Tinubu.
However, 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. Howell, however, declined the request.
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 Freedom of Information Act requests with six US federal agencies, seeking records from 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.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan approached the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy.
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, 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 held that the FBI and DEA had failed to provide enough evidence to justify maintaining their Glomar responses.
