Itauma loses unbeaten record to Hrgovic, discharged from hospital

Nigerian-British heavyweight prospect Moses Itauma has returned home after spending a night in hospital following the first defeat of his professional boxing career.

The 21-year-old was taken to hospital for medical checks after Croatia’s Filip Hrgovic stopped him in the ninth round of their vacant IBF heavyweight title bout at The O2 Arena in London.

Itauma, who had built a reputation as one of the most promising young heavyweights in world boxing, was carried from the ring on a stretcher after appearing exhausted and struggling to defend himself in the closing stages of the contest.

His promoter, Frank Warren’s Queensberry Promotions, subsequently confirmed that Itauma had received medical attention and was discharged after doctors completed their assessment.

“Moses is well. He left the hospital last night and, after being checked over, he is now back home with his family,” Queensberry said in a statement.

The defeat brought an abrupt end to Itauma’s unbeaten professional record and came after he had appeared to control much of the fight against the more experienced Hrgovic.

Itauma was reportedly ahead on the judges’ scorecards before the Croatian began to turn the contest around in the later rounds. The British-Nigerian showed increasing signs of fatigue in the eighth round, allowing Hrgovic to step up the pressure.

READ ALSO:

• DSS moves to halt Sowore’s cybercrime trial until after 2027 election
• Kogi Abduction: Kidnappers Demand ₦20m Ransom for Each NYSC Member
• Deadly Ikola clash: Lagos demolishes shanties beneath high-tension lines

Referee Howard Foster eventually halted the fight at 2:27 of the ninth round when Itauma was no longer able to adequately defend himself.

There were initial concerns that the young boxer might have suffered a leg injury, with Warren confirming immediately after the bout that Itauma had been taken to hospital.

“Moses has gone to hospital. He has done something to his leg. He did something to his leg and he was exhausted, is the truth of it. It was a very fast-paced fight,” Warren said.

Despite the setback, Warren believes the defeat can serve as an important learning experience for Itauma, who is regarded as a major prospect in the heavyweight division.

“He got caught and the fighting instinct was to stand there and let his shots go,” Warren said.

“That’s what it is at the top level. You have to tick all the boxes. He has got to learn from the fight and will hopefully do that.”

Hrgovic also acknowledged that Itauma had given him a difficult fight before his late surge changed the outcome.

“I was getting outboxed, but somehow I found the energy and the punch to change it all,” the Croatian said.

The 34-year-old praised Itauma as the toughest opponent he had faced, while pointing to the youngster’s lack of experience at the highest level.

“He is the best fighter I have been in with but he needs more experience. He gassed out. I knew I had the pace in my favour. He gassed out but he is one of a kind,” Hrgovic said.

Itauma’s defeat may have ended his perfect record, but his rapid rise and the quality of his performance before fatigue set in are expected to ensure that the setback does not derail his career.

With the young heavyweight now back home recovering with his family, attention will turn to his rehabilitation and how he responds to the first major adversity of his professional career.

Itauma loses unbeaten record to Hrgovic, discharged from hospital

Tinubu Joins US Court Battle to Block Release of FBI, DEA Records

Nigerian leader intervenes in FOIA lawsuit, citing privacy protections and arguing that public curiosity about his past does not override personal privacy rights under U.S. law.

The Legal Showdown Over Historical Investigative Files has drawn international attention as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu formally intervened in a United States federal court case to prevent the further release of FBI and DEA records related to a decades-old drug investigation. The Nigerian president filed a 16-page legal response on August 28, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, urging the court to reject a motion by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan that seeks to compel the disclosure of unredacted investigative files. Tinubu’s legal team, led by attorneys Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson, and Oluwole O. Afolabi, argues that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was never intended to serve as a tool for unearthing private information about individuals, even when that information resides in government files.

How the Case Began traces back to 2022 and 2023, when Greenspan—founder of the transparency website PlainSite—submitted 12 FOIA requests to six U.S. federal agencies. These included the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and the U.S. Department of State. Greenspan sought records connected to a Chicago heroin trafficking ring that operated in the early 1990s, and the requests specifically named four individuals: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele. Several agencies initially issued “Glomar” responses—a legal maneuver that allows government bodies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records—citing privacy and national security concerns.

READ ALSO:

• Petrol price heads towards N1,500 per litre despite falling crude oil prices
• Bashir El-Rufai Vows Never to Forgive APC, Threatens to ‘Terrorise’ Party Over Family Ordeal
• Niger coup attempt: Gunfire, explosions rock Niamey as soldiers revolt

Judge Howell’s April 2025 Ruling marked a pivotal development when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA had improperly employed Glomar responses. The judge determined that the agencies had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in keeping secret whether Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation. Judge Howell ordered both agencies to conduct comprehensive searches for responsive records, process all non-exempt documents, and release records with appropriate redactions where legally justified. However, the judge sustained the CIA’s Glomar response, allowing the intelligence agency to maintain its refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records related to Tinubu—a decision that has itself become a point of contention.

The Disputed Document Release followed Judge Howell’s order, with the FBI and DEA releasing thousands of pages of documents. However, these releases came with significant redactions and withholdings, accompanied by a Vaughn index—a detailed document explaining the legal basis for each redaction. Dissatisfied with the extent of the redactions, Greenspan filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to order the release of additional unredacted materials, compel the agencies to conduct more thorough searches, and challenge the validity of the agencies’ exemption claims. It was at this juncture that President Tinubu formally intervened in the case to protect his personal privacy interests.

Tinubu’s Core Legal Arguments were advanced in his August 28 filing, beginning with the assertion that FOIA’s primary purpose is to shed light on government activities, not to expose private information about individuals contained in government files. Tinubu’s lawyers cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which held that disclosure of records concerning private citizens generally reveals little about government operations. The legal team invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects law enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” and also cited protections under the U.S. Privacy Act, arguing that the FBI and DEA “properly redacted or withheld exempt information.” Crucially, Tinubu’s lawyers rejected Greenspan’s argument that Judge Howell’s April 2025 ruling against the Glomar responses removed the president’s remaining privacy interest in the files. The filing argued that Judge Howell had distinguished between Tinubu’s privacy interest in keeping secret whether he had been investigated and his separate privacy interest in the contents of any investigative files, while recognizing that individual portions of files could still be protected through redactions. The legal team firmly challenged the notion that Tinubu’s position as Nigeria’s president creates a public interest justifying disclosure, arguing that “plaintiff’s interest in an individual or that individual’s activities is not a ‘public interest’ that FOIA recognizes.” They maintained that public curiosity about Tinubu’s background, political career, or fitness for office does not meet the legal threshold for public interest under FOIA. Tinubu’s lawyers also dismissed suggestions of a “secret prosecution” or government cover-up as “unsubstantiated allegations” that do not justify releasing law enforcement records concerning an individual, arguing that Greenspan has failed to provide sufficient evidence of government wrongdoing.

READ ALSO:

• 2027: Atiku Pledges $100bn Start-up Fund, Slams Tinubu Over Cost-of-Living Crisis
• Borno: Troops kill 26 Boko Haram fighters, destroy 10 motorcycles in Kukawa
• Police Rescue Two Colombian Women Held Captive by Trafficking Syndicate in Lagos

The FBI’s Confidential Submission came in a parallel development that underscores the sensitivity of the case, as the FBI filed a separate motion on August 20, 2026, seeking permission to submit a confidential declaration for Judge Howell’s private review (ex parte and in camera). The agency argued that it could not publicly explain the full basis for its redactions without potentially exposing sensitive law enforcement techniques and procedures (protected under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F)), endangering the safety of individuals mentioned in the files, or compromising ongoing or future investigations. Judge Howell granted the FBI’s application, allowing the agency to submit the sensitive materials under seal for her private evaluation.

What’s at Stake in this case carries significant implications for the balance between transparency and privacy, as it tests the boundaries between FOIA’s disclosure mandate and individual privacy protections. The case also has international relations implications, involving a sitting foreign head of state in U.S. legal proceedings, and could set a precedent that influences how U.S. agencies handle FOIA requests involving foreign nationals. Additionally, the case centers on historical accountability, focusing on investigations from over 30 years ago.

Tinubu’s Consistent Denial of any wrongdoing linked to the allegations that form the basis of the historical investigation has been maintained throughout this process. His legal intervention in the U.S. court represents his most direct legal challenge to the disclosure of records that could contain details about his past. The case now rests with Judge Beryl Howell, who is reviewing the unredacted materials privately to determine whether the FBI and DEA’s redactions and withholdings are legally justified under FOIA exemptions. This is a developing story, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to issue a ruling on Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment in the coming weeks.

Tinubu Joins US Court Battle to Block Release of FBI, DEA Records

US to Withdraw 200 Troops from Nigeria as Counterterrorism Mission Winds Down

The United States is preparing to withdraw approximately 200 troops deployed to Nigeria earlier this year to support the fight against Islamist militants, as its counterterrorism mission in the country winds down. The withdrawal is expected to be completed by late September, according to a report by The New York Times citing US military officials. However, the departure of the larger contingent will not end US security cooperation with Nigeria, as smaller teams of military trainers and intelligence analysts are expected to remain in the country.

The US troops were deployed to northeastern Nigeria in February following an agreement between Washington and Abuja to strengthen cooperation against terrorist groups. The deployment followed US airstrikes in Nigeria’s Sokoto State in late December 2025, which President Donald Trump described as “powerful and deadly” strikes against Islamic State targets. Nigerian officials confirmed at the time that the country had provided intelligence for those strikes as part of ongoing security collaboration with the US. According to a US official who spoke to Reuters in February, approximately 200 American soldiers were sent to train Nigerian forces combating extremist groups, augmenting a smaller number of US personnel already on the ground. The deployment came amid pressure from Washington on Nigeria to act against militants in the country’s northwest, following Trump’s criticism that Nigeria had failed to protect Christians from attacks. The focus of the mission was on intelligence support, training, and counterterrorism operations, rather than establishing a permanent US combat presence in Nigeria.

READ ALSO:

• “Son of a Nobody”: VeryDarkMan Fires Back at Falana, Defends NBA Conference Invite
• EFCC extradites two Nigerians to US over alleged sextortion linked to teen deaths
• Troops Neutralise Over 21 Boko Haram, ISWAP Terrorists in Adamawa Precision Strike

US and Nigerian officials have described the relatively small deployment as highly effective, particularly in improving intelligence sharing and supporting operations against Islamic State militants. The mission culminated in May with a major operational success. On May 15, US and Nigerian forces carried out a joint operation that killed Abu Bilal al-Minuki, described by US officials as the “global number two” leader of the Islamic State. Nigerian President Bola Tinubu confirmed the operation, stating that joint forces had struck al-Minuki’s residence in the Lake Chad Basin, killing the wanted militant and several of his deputies. Trump praised the mission as “carefully planned and extremely complex,” adding that the US had informants tracking al-Minuki’s movements. Following al-Minuki’s death, on May 17, Nigerian and US forces conducted multiple airstrikes in northeastern Borno State, killing more than 20 Islamic State militants who had been observed gathering and moving in the area. The US Africa Command stated that no American or Nigerian personnel were injured in those strikes, and that the operations had weakened the group’s ability to threaten US and allied security. US officials have described the Nigeria deployment as a potential model for future American security operations in Africa, based on a smaller and temporary military footprint focused on specific objectives. The operation against al-Minuki significantly weakened the group’s leadership in Nigeria and beyond, according to military assessments.

Despite the reported gains, terrorist attacks and other forms of insecurity have continued across Nigeria. Recent weeks have seen deadly assaults by gunmen in multiple parts of the country, as well as attacks on military installations in the northeast. The wider security situation encompasses a complex mix of threats, including attacks by Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, banditry, kidnappings, communal violence, and other armed conflicts. Nigeria has repeatedly maintained that the country’s insecurity is complex and cannot be attributed to a single cause. While the US withdrawal is underway, military cooperation between Washington and Abuja is expected to continue through intelligence sharing and training provided by the smaller US teams that remain in Nigeria.

US to Withdraw 200 Troops from Nigeria as Counterterrorism Mission Winds Down