BREAKING: Tinubu Tells U.S. Court FBI, DEA Records On Alleged Drug Trafficking Probe Sought To Influence Nigerian Politics

 

In their amended response, the lawyers argued that Greenspan’s interest in obtaining the records goes beyond the purpose of FOIA, which they said is to provide information about government activities.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s lawyers have accused transparency activist Aaron Greenspan of seeking FBI and DEA records concerning the President in an effort to influence politics in Nigeria.

The claim was made in an amended legal filing submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Greenspan’s ongoing Freedom of Information Act case.

Greenspan has been seeking records from U.S. government agencies concerning Tinubu and other individuals.

Tinubu’s lawyers are opposing Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and asking the court to allow the FBI and DEA to maintain redactions and withholdings in documents already processed.

In their amended response, the lawyers argued that Greenspan’s interest in obtaining the records goes beyond the purpose of FOIA, which they said is to provide information about government activities.

They said Greenspan’s filings show that his focus is on obtaining information about Tinubu as an individual.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers said.

They argued that the information Greenspan seeks concerns a private individual and that disclosure would not necessarily reveal how the FBI or DEA performed their duties.

The lawyers also pointed to Greenspan’s stated interest in Tinubu’s fitness for office.

“Plaintiff is admittedly attempting using FOIA to try to implicate private individuals in criminal investigations and possible indictments,” they said.

They went further, arguing that Greenspan’s requests were intended to uncover alleged criminal records concerning Tinubu and use them to influence politics in Nigeria.

“Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are also intended to uncover alleged criminal records of an individual and utilize those to influence politics in a foreign nation,” the filing states.

“Neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are ‘public interests’ that FOIA recognizes,” the lawyers argued.

Greenspan’s requests have been the subject of litigation since 2023. In an April 2025 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia addressed the FBI and DEA’s earlier refusal to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed and ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records.

Tinubu’s lawyers now argue that the court’s earlier ruling did not require the government to disclose every piece of information contained in responsive investigative files.

They distinguish between whether an investigation existed and whether the contents of investigative records must be disclosed.

The lawyers say the FBI and DEA have already produced thousands of documents, although some material was redacted or withheld.

They argue that the remaining information is protected by FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act, which they say protect personal information contained in law-enforcement records.

The lawyers also dispute Greenspan’s apparent argument that information about Tinubu’s background was already public following a 1993 forfeiture proceeding.

According to Tinubu’s lawyers, the proceeding did not disclose the details or results of a possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.

“Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor,” they said.

They also argue that Tinubu’s current position as President does not remove his privacy rights over records concerning events that occurred decades before he became president.

“Intervenor was not President of Nigeria in 1993,” the amended filing states.

The lawyers say the records sought relate to events from approximately 1988 to 1991.

They further argue that Greenspan has not provided sufficient evidence to support allegations of government wrongdoing, including claims concerning a possible hidden prosecution, secret agreement or cover-up.

“Unsubstantiated assertions of government wrongdoing” do not, they argue, provide sufficient grounds for obtaining private law-enforcement information.

Tinubu’s lawyers have therefore asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA’s existing redactions and withholdings to stand.

The amended response represents the position of Tinubu and his lawyers in the litigation; it does not establish that the records contain evidence of criminal conduct by Tinubu, nor does it amount to a court finding on Greenspan’s allegations.

Greenspan has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for US Attorneys to release without redaction records relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation that he says identified Nigeria’s President Tinubu as a subject.

The case also involves records from a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding concerning about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.

Tinubu has denied any wrongdoing.

Greenspan, an American researcher, IT expert and founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, made the request in a series of filings in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the US agencies.

SOURCE: SAHARA REPORTERS