Tinubu FBI records: Agency seeks secret court filing over safety, investigative methods

Tinubu FBI records: Agency seeks secret court filing over safety, investigative methods

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to allow it to privately explain why some investigative records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu remain withheld, arguing that publicly disclosing the full basis for the redactions could expose sensitive law-enforcement techniques and potentially endanger individuals.

The FBI made the request in a filing dated August 20, 2026, in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Aaron Greenspan, the founder of PlainSite, who is seeking historical US government records connected to investigations involving Tinubu and allegations of drug trafficking.

The agency is asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to permit it to submit confidential declarations ex parte and in camera. This would allow the FBI to provide its full explanation directly to Judge Beryl Howell, under seal and without making the information available to the other parties or the public.

The FBI said the request is necessary because publicly setting out the complete justification for withholding some of the records could reveal the information it is seeking to protect.

“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,” the agency said in its filing, arguing that an ex parte, under-seal declaration is therefore necessary.

Under the US FOIA, Exemption 7(E) can protect information that would disclose law-enforcement techniques or procedures, while Exemption 7(F) covers information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.

The FBI has also relied on FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(D) in processing the records sought by Greenspan. The exemptions broadly address personal privacy, confidential sources and other protected information obtained during law-enforcement investigations.

The agency has not said that Tinubu is the person whose life or safety could be endangered by disclosure. Rather, the potential danger cited in the filing relates to the statutory basis for applying Exemption 7(F).

If Judge Howell approves the request, the FBI said it intends to submit its confidential declaration explaining the disputed withholdings by August 28, 2026.

READ ALSO:

• 2027: Senator Saliu Mustapha quits APC after losing Kwara governorship ticket
• 2027 Election: NDC Tells Atiku to Step Aside, Support Peter Obi to Remove Tinubu
• Delta Governor Reveals ₦503,000 Monthly Salary, Says Permanent Secretaries Earn ₦900,000

Greenspan has filed multiple FOIA requests seeking historical records from US federal agencies relating to a criminal investigation into a Chicago-based heroin trafficking organisation that operated in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

His requests include the FBI’s “entire FBI file” on Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu in a case covering the period between 1992 and 1993.

The records sought concern four individuals identified in the litigation: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Adegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

The requests were submitted to several US agencies, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State. The CIA was subsequently added to the case.

Several of the agencies initially issued what is known as a “Glomar response”, declining to confirm or deny whether records relating to the individuals existed.

Greenspan challenged the agencies’ responses through the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy before taking the dispute to federal court.

He filed the lawsuit on June 12, 2023, challenging the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.

A major development came in April 2025, when Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their Glomar responses concerning the disputed records.

Howell found that the agencies had not established sufficient privacy interests to justify refusing to confirm or deny whether records existed concerning Tinubu.

The judge ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their Glomar responses, although she upheld the CIA’s Glomar response.

The ruling was significant because it opened the way for the agencies to address the existence of the requested records rather than simply refusing to acknowledge whether they had them.

However, the ruling did not amount to a finding that Tinubu committed drug trafficking or any other criminal offence.

The case is a FOIA litigation over access to government records, not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

The court’s decision also did not require every requested document to be released without redactions. US law allows agencies to withhold information where they can establish that specific FOIA exemptions apply.

The latest filing concerns records that the FBI says remain protected from disclosure even after the earlier Glomar dispute.

The agency is effectively asking Judge Howell to examine the sensitive material and its justification for withholding it without requiring the FBI to reveal publicly the investigative methods, sources or safety-related information it says are protected.

The request therefore represents a further legal dispute over how much of the Tinubu FBI records can be released, rather than a blanket decision to keep the entire file secret.

The FBI’s filing also does not reveal what the withheld records contain. It only explains why the agency believes portions of the material qualify for continued protection under federal law.

The development comes amid another dispute over the timing of the government’s response in the case.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently asked Judge Howell for an additional 10 days to respond to a court order concerning the records. The judge granted only four additional days, setting August 21, 2026, as the deadline.

Tinubu, through his legal team, subsequently joined the DOJ’s request for the longer extension.

The court’s deadline does not necessarily mean that all the requested records will be released immediately. The dispute still involves questions about applicable FOIA exemptions, redactions and whether the government has adequately justified withholding particular portions of the records.

The latest FBI request adds another issue for the court to consider: whether the agency should be allowed to provide some of its evidence and explanations privately because publicly disclosing them could undermine the very protections it is invoking.

The renewed attention on the Tinubu FBI records has generated political and public interest because the underlying FOIA requests concern historical allegations involving drug trafficking.

However, the latest FBI filing should not be interpreted as confirmation of those allegations.

The FBI has not publicly disclosed the contents of the withheld material, and the court has not found Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking based on the records at issue.

The ongoing proceedings are focused on whether the US government has complied with the Freedom of Information Act and whether particular information can legally be withheld under recognised exemptions.

The court will ultimately determine whether the FBI has provided sufficient grounds for keeping the disputed material confidential and whether any additional records should be released.

Tinubu FBI records: Agency seeks secret court filing over safety, investigative methods