🎧
Listen to this article
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has petitioned a United States court for authorization to submit confidential declarations detailing the grounds for withholding specific investigative documents associated with drug trafficking allegations involving President Bola Tinubu.
In a legal filing submitted on August 20 to the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the bureau explained that it cannot openly publish all the rationales behind its decision to retain the files.
Consequently, the agency requested judicial approval to file an ex parte, in camera declaration—a private written submission directed solely to the judge rather than the public docket.
The FBI indicated that releasing the redacted details might expose sensitive law-enforcement techniques and procedures while potentially compromising the safety and lives of individuals.
This court filing was brought to light on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently retained by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
According to the bureau, the files in question stem from two distinct Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submissions.
The initial filing, registered under number 1588244-000, targeted the “entire FBI file” concerning Tinubu, designated in the paperwork as Nigeria’s president-elect as of February 2023.
The second submission, designated as number 1593615-000, requested FBI Form 302 interview documentation regarding Tinubu originating from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU across 1992 and 1993.
The bureau noted that it applied several FOIA exemptions, specifically exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), to support the redaction of specific document segments.
It stated that disclosure could potentially uncover investigative methodologies or reasonably jeopardize personal safety or physical well-being.
Furthermore, the agency informed the court that fully disclosing the basis for invoking exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) publicly is unfeasible.
As a result, it formally requested permission to present an auxiliary declaration under seal to clarify its stance before the presiding judge.
The FBI confirmed that, should the request be granted, the confidential filing would be submitted prior to August 28.
The litigation is spearheaded by Aaron Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, who has actively pursued documentation concerning historical investigations into a Chicago heroin trafficking network dating back to the early 1990s.
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted 12 FOIA applications across six distinct US federal entities, targeting files related to criminal probes involving four individuals: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
Initially, five of the bodies issued responses indicating they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested archives.
Greenspan appealed these responses to the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP), which subsequently sustained the agencies’ positions.
He then initiated a lawsuit on June 12, 2023, contesting what is recognized under American legal standards as a Glomar response—an official refusal to verify or deny whether requested records exist.
The initial defendants named in the action included the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and the Department of State, with the CIA incorporated later.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell determined that the Glomar assertions utilized by the FBI and DEA were invalid and mandated their removal.
Judge Howell concluded that the agencies failed to demonstrate a legally protected privacy interest sufficient to maintain secrecy over the fact that Tinubu had been targeted in a criminal inquiry.
The judge likewise observed that the departments offered inadequate evidence to justify maintaining their refusal to acknowledge the files’ existence.
This latest procedural step follows an effort by the US Department of Justice seeking an additional 10-day window to respond to a court directive regarding the disclosure of files tied to the allegations involving Tinubu.
Judge Howell authorized only a four-day extension, adjusting the deadline to August 21.
Represented by his legal counsel, Tinubu subsequently supported the DOJ’s motion for the extended 10-day period, though the request was reportedly turned down.
The FBI’s recent motion now aims to furnish the judge privately with supplemental grounds for keeping specific documents sealed, particularly where publication could compromise operational methods or endanger individuals.
No Comments