President Bola Tinubu has urged a United States court to dismiss a motion seeking the release of additional Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records concerning him, describing claims of a secret criminal prosecution or government cover-up as unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.
Tinubu, the presidential candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 election, made the submission in response to a motion for summary judgment filed by American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The President, through his lawyers, Christopher W. Carmichael and Victor P. Henderson of Henderson Parks, LLC, alongside Oluwole O. Afolabi, argued that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit was designed to obtain private information about him for use in Nigerian politics rather than expose the activities of American government agencies.
In the response filed on August 28, 2026, and signed by Carmichael, Tinubu said Greenspan’s requests were aimed at uncovering possible criminal records relating to an individual and using them to influence politics in a foreign country.
“Neither the interest in possible criminal records of an individual, nor influencing a foreign nation are ‘public interests’ that FOIA recognizes,” Tinubu argued.
The litigation has assumed political significance in Nigeria, where developments in the case have been amplified by opposition interests, including those associated with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The President dismissed suggestions that there was a hidden criminal prosecution, secret investigation or agreement by the United States government not to prosecute him.
He argued that Greenspan had provided no evidence to support allegations of a cover-up.
“The claim that there is some coverup conspiracy is unsubstantiated by actual evidence,” Tinubu submitted, adding that “unsubstantiated allegations are easy to assert in filings, but insufficient to justify a request for information about an individual.”
Tinubu consequently asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to retain their redactions and document withholdings.
He argued that the plaintiff had failed to meet the legal threshold required to overcome the privacy protections available to individuals mentioned in law-enforcement records.
The President also rejected Greenspan’s argument that disclosure was justified by public interest in his “fitness for office”.
According to Tinubu, FOIA is intended to reveal the activities of American government agencies and not to provide a platform for extracting private information about individuals contained in government archives.
“The asserted ‘public interest in Tinubu’s own fitness for office’ is not an interest FOIA recognizes or one that needs to be balanced,” his lawyers argued.
Tinubu further said the records being sought related to events that occurred more than three decades ago when he was a private individual and student, long before becoming a public official.
“Intervenor should retain his full privacy interests because he was not a public official in 1993,” he submitted.
“Plaintiff’s FOIA requests seek three decades old records pertaining to events that occurred when Intervenor was a student. The Intervenor’s subsequent involvement in foreign politics should not diminish his privacy interests in records from before he became a public official.”
Greenspan had submitted 12 FOIA requests seeking records concerning “Bola Ahmed Tinubu and associates” from US agencies, including the Department of Justice, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency and DEA.
Eight of the requests, involving the CIA, FBI and DEA, remained in contention after the initial responses.
The court upheld the CIA’s Glomar response but directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt records. The agencies subsequently produced thousands of pages of documents, with some portions redacted.
Tinubu said Greenspan’s complaint that he could not recall seeing the President’s name on any of the documents released demonstrated the true objective of the litigation.
He argued that the plaintiff’s “singular focus” was obtaining documents bearing his name rather than examining the conduct of the FBI or DEA.
Tinubu also rejected arguments that the court’s earlier ruling on the agencies’ Glomar responses had extinguished his privacy rights over the contents of any investigative files.
He maintained that the court had distinguished between the question of whether he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any such files.
The President similarly dismissed Greenspan’s reliance on the 1993 forfeiture proceedings and the Moss Affidavit, insisting that neither had disclosed the details or results of any possible criminal investigation involving him.
“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public,” Tinubu said.
He maintained that scattered public disclosures concerning an individual could not automatically erase privacy rights over information contained in government files that had never been officially disclosed.
Tinubu further rejected the argument that the interest of Nigeria’s more than 230 million citizens in his background justified the release of the records.
He insisted that public curiosity about the background or fitness for office of an individual, including a serving President, was not the same as the public interest recognised under FOIA.
“The record is clear that Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are focused on the individual and are not intended to discover anything about the agency,” Tinubu submitted.
He argued that the thousands of pages already released by the FBI and DEA had provided information about the agencies’ activities and that removing personal-identification redactions would add little to public understanding of US government conduct.
“For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand,” the President submitted.
