President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to reject a bid by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain additional records relating to historical investigations involving the Nigerian leader.
Tinubu’s legal team argued that the records sought by Greenspan contain information about Tinubu’s private life before he entered public office and should remain protected under US privacy laws.
The request was contained in a 16-page filing submitted on August 28, 2026, in the ongoing case of Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Tinubu intervened in the case to protect his interests and is asking the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment while allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to retain existing redactions and withholdings.
What Greenspan is seeking
The dispute stems from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by Greenspan seeking records held by several US agencies.
Among the materials requested are records concerning Tinubu and FBI interview documents dating to 1992 and 1993. The broader case relates to records that Greenspan says were generated during an early-1990s federal investigation involving alleged drug trafficking and money laundering.
Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ handling of the requests, including their decisions to withhold or redact portions of the records.
The case has been ongoing since 2023 and has involved the FBI, DEA and other US government agencies.
Tinubu’s privacy argument
In their latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the records concern him as a private citizen at the time the events in question allegedly occurred.
They argued that Tinubu’s subsequent rise to public office did not automatically eliminate his privacy interests in information concerning his earlier private life.
The lawyers specifically relied on FOIA Exemption 7(C), a provision that permits the withholding of certain law-enforcement records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
They also cited the US Privacy Act in support of their position.
According to the legal team, the records date back roughly three decades and relate to a period when Tinubu was not a public official.
They argued that the public interest claimed by Greenspan does not outweigh the privacy protections available under US law.
Lawyers challenge public-domain argument
Tinubu’s lawyers also disputed Greenspan’s argument that some information should be released because related material has previously entered the public domain.
The legal team referred to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds held in accounts bearing Tinubu’s name, arguing that the existence of that proceeding did not amount to an official disclosure of the contents or outcome of any separate criminal investigation.
They relied on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to argue that privacy interests can remain attached to information contained in government records even where some related details have appeared publicly.
What the lawyers want
Tinubu’s legal team urged the court to reject Greenspan’s motion and permit the FBI and DEA to maintain the redactions and withholdings already applied to the records.
You May Like: Tinubu To Return Tuesday, Mark Independence Day In Lagos
The lawyers argued that FOIA is intended to promote transparency concerning the operations of the US government, rather than provide access to government files simply because members of the public are interested in an individual’s background.
The filing therefore asks the court to consider whether the records sought by Greenspan demonstrate a legitimate public interest in the activities of US agencies sufficient to overcome the privacy protections claimed by Tinubu and other individuals mentioned in the records.
The court has yet to make a final determination on the outstanding dispute over the records.
The proceedings are a civil FOIA records-access case, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. The existence of the litigation itself does not establish criminal wrongdoing by the Nigerian president.