🎧
Listen to this article
President Bola Tinubu has filed a legal motion in a United States court to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from releasing records related to past drug trafficking allegations.
The documents are being sought by American transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan, who instituted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against multiple US federal agencies to access investigative files involving Tinubu.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests demand the release of the FBI’s complete case files on Tinubu, alongside FBI Form 302 interview reports covering events between 1992 and 1993.
The legal battle also touches on records linked to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 associated with Tinubu.
President Tinubu has repeatedly denied any criminal wrongdoing.
According to a 16-page court motion shared with Channels Television by his legal representatives—Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson, and Oluwole O. Afolabi—on Saturday, Tinubu argued that releasing the unredacted investigative files would violate his fundamental privacy rights.
“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor. Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor.”
“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent. The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are “scattered” disclosures of information from that same file. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 764-67 (“our cases have recognized the privacy interests inherent in the non-disclosure of certain information even where the information may have been public at one time.”).”
“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed. Applying Reporter’s Committee, this Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).”
“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as “distinct” from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’”)”
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff”
“Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of Plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s overarching goal.”
“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.”
“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.””
“Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand”
See photos of court documents below:
No Comments