Why US Shouldn’t Release My FBI Files

Bola Ahmed Tinubu

President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to reject a request seeking the release of his unredacted records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The request was made by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the US Freedom of Information Act.

In legal documents filed by Tinubu’s lawyers before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the President argued that the records should remain withheld because American privacy laws protect such information.

Tinubu’s legal team also argued that there was no recognised public interest under US law that would justify releasing the documents.

They said the request appeared to be linked to Nigerian politics and was mainly focused on obtaining government records containing information about the President.

The lawyers further argued that the Freedom of Information Act was created to give citizens access to information about government activities rather than personal records about individuals kept in government files.

The legal battle is connected to long-running questions surrounding Tinubu’s history with US law-enforcement agencies.

The issue became a major talking point during the build-up to the 2023 presidential election after details of a 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States became public.

At the time, a US court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 connected to an account bearing Tinubu’s name.

US authorities had alleged that the money was linked to narcotics trafficking or prohibited financial transactions.

Tinubu’s political party, the All Progressives Congress, maintained during the election litigation that the case was a civil forfeiture matter and did not amount to a criminal conviction.

The Labour Party and its then presidential candidate, Peter Obi, however, argued that the forfeiture had implications for Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the election.

In September 2023, the Presidential Election Petition Court ruled that the petitioners had not proved that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.

The matter did not end there, as opposition figures and other individuals continued seeking official documents concerning Tinubu from US authorities.

Greenspan’s latest request is seeking access to a number of documents, including the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu and interview records from investigations conducted between 1992 and 1993.

Tinubu’s lawyers have opposed the release, arguing that the documents fall under exemptions contained in US law that protect personal information found in law-enforcement records.

They also rejected the argument that Nigerians’ interest in Tinubu’s past should be treated as a public interest under the American Freedom of Information Act.

According to the legal team, the fact that Tinubu is Nigeria’s sitting President does not automatically remove his privacy rights under US law.

The lawyers also questioned claims that the records could expose a secret prosecution or an agreement by American authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.

They described such claims as speculation and said no evidence had been presented to prove that any wrongdoing by US authorities occurred.

Another issue raised by Tinubu’s legal team was whether his privacy rights had already been lost because some information concerning the old investigation had previously appeared in public records.

Greenspan had argued that the general details of the investigation had been publicly known since the 1990s.

Tinubu’s lawyers disagreed, saying the previous civil forfeiture case did not reveal the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving the President.

They maintained that an individual can still have privacy rights over information that has not been publicly disclosed, even when other related details have already entered public records.

The President’s lawyers therefore asked the court to dismiss Greenspan’s request for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to continue withholding or redacting parts of the documents.

The case took another turn in April 2025 when US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to stop relying on so-called Glomar responses, which had allowed the agencies to neither confirm nor deny whether records relating to the request existed.

The judge directed the agencies to process the requested documents while applying exemptions permitted under US law.

Since then, the FBI has continued seeking to keep some portions of the records from public view, relying on protections covering law-enforcement information, individual privacy, investigative methods and the safety of people connected to investigations.