Tinubu Gets Court Relief as US Judge Rejects Fresh Move in FBI, DEA Case

A United States federal court has rejected a fresh attempt by Aaron Greenspan to obtain additional information directly from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and a Washington-based lobbying firm, DCI Group, in an ongoing legal battle over historical FBI and DEA records.

The ruling, delivered on Friday, October 30, 2026, by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Greenspan’s application to serve additional discovery requests on Tinubu and subpoena documents from DCI Group AZ LLC and/or its parent company.

However, the decision was not an outright victory for the Nigerian President or the American federal agencies, as the court also directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to provide further explanations for withholding certain historical records.

Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Greenspan’s proposed discovery requests were not sufficiently relevant to the central issues in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

The judge emphasised that the application concerned the legal process for obtaining government records and did not establish that Tinubu committed any drug-related offence.

Greenspan, who is representing himself in the lawsuit, had asked the court for permission to serve six interrogatories, four requests for admission and one request for production on Tinubu.

He also sought permission to subpoena documents from DCI Group AZ LLC and/or its parent company.

The proposed discovery was connected to allegations of repeated, large-scale distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on Greenspan’s website, PlainSite.

Greenspan claimed the alleged cyberattacks disrupted his ability to publish materials relating to the litigation.

He argued that the attacks suggested that some individuals were closely monitoring the case and might have an interest in preventing public access to documents.

However, he did not accuse Tinubu of organising or carrying out the alleged cyberattacks.

In rejecting the application, Judge Howell held that investigating the source of the alleged attacks would not help determine whether the FBI and DEA had conducted adequate searches or lawfully withheld information.

The court consequently found that the proposed discovery failed to meet the relevance and proportionality requirements under American civil procedure rules.

The decision represents another development in the lengthy legal dispute over access to historical American investigative records concerning Tinubu.

The lawsuit, filed on June 12, 2023, followed a series of FOIA requests submitted by Greenspan between 2022 and 2023 to six American government agencies.

The agencies included the FBI, DEA, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Executive Office for US Attorneys and Department of State.

Greenspan sought investigative records relating to an alleged Chicago-based heroin trafficking and money-laundering operation investigated by American law enforcement agencies in the early 1990s.

Tinubu and another Nigerian, Abiodun Agbele, were among the individuals identified in the requests.

The case took a significant turn in April 2025 when Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their earlier refusal to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed.

The judge noted that previous public court documents had already acknowledged aspects of the investigations involving the individuals named in the requests.

The agencies were subsequently required to search for the records and justify any information withheld under applicable FOIA exemptions.

According to the latest court proceedings, the FBI processed 399 pages, releasing 30 pages in full while withholding others entirely or partially. The agency also identified 59 duplicate pages.

The DEA processed 240 pages but did not release any of them in full.

Significantly, Judge Howell observed that none of the records released by either agency contained Tinubu’s name, despite his inclusion in the original requests.

Tinubu had earlier intervened in the proceedings to protect his privacy interests, particularly concerning personal information contained in the historical investigative records.

His legal team argued that sensitive personal information should not be disclosed, maintaining that the President’s privacy interests deserved protection.

However, Judge Howell questioned some of the agencies’ reliance on privacy exemptions, noting that Tinubu was already a public official during the period covered by the records, having been a candidate for and subsequently a member of the Nigerian Senate.

The court also recognised the public interest in understanding how American law enforcement agencies investigated the historical case and handled the records.

Beyond rejecting Greenspan’s discovery application, the judge delivered a mixed decision on the substantive FOIA dispute.

Judge Howell granted the FBI summary judgment concerning the adequacy of its search and its reliance on one statutory exemption but rejected the broader summary judgment applications by both sides on the remaining issues.

The judge particularly questioned some of the FBI and DEA’s explanations for withholding information under statutory exemptions relating to personal privacy, confidential sources and potential harm to individuals.

One issue concerned the FBI’s continued redaction of information from an affidavit by an IRS special agent, Kevin Moss, which had previously appeared in public court records.

The court questioned why some information already available in public documents remained withheld in the agencies’ disclosures.

Judge Howell also found that some of the agencies’ explanations did not adequately demonstrate the foreseeable harm that could result from releasing the disputed information.

Consequently, the FBI and DEA were directed to prepare supplementary declarations explaining their continued withholding of certain records.

The agencies were also ordered to confer with Greenspan and propose an expedited schedule for further proceedings.

The October 30 ruling did not order the immediate release of additional records. Any further disclosure will depend on whether the agencies can provide sufficient legal justification for their withholding decisions and satisfy the court’s requirements.

For Tinubu, the decision means Greenspan cannot use the proposed discovery process to obtain additional information directly from him or DCI Group in the manner requested.

However, the wider legal battle over access to the historical investigative records remains unresolved.

Importantly, the lawsuit is a Freedom of Information Act dispute, not a criminal trial against the Nigerian President. The latest ruling does not establish that Tinubu committed any drug-related offence, nor does it amount to a judicial determination of his guilt or innocence regarding the historical allegations.

The next stage of the proceedings will focus on the supplementary explanations from the FBI and DEA and whether the agencies can justify continuing to withhold the disputed records.