By Amah
Kindly share:
The long-running legal battle over United States government records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a fresh and potentially significant turn after a US federal court granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permission to present sensitive information to the judge privately and behind closed doors.
Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FBI’s request to submit an ex parte and in-camera declaration in support of its renewed bid to withhold portions of records sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The development means the FBI will be allowed to make part of its case directly to the judge without placing the sensitive details on the public record. The judge, rather than the public or the opposing parties, will examine the confidential material and determine whether the FBI has sufficient legal grounds to keep the information from disclosure.
The FBI’s request was filed on August 20, 2026, amid a continuing dispute over historical records relating to Tinubu and investigations conducted by US law-enforcement agencies in the early 1990s.
Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, which has been involved in efforts to obtain the records, said it had been informed that Judge Howell had granted the FBI permission to make the confidential submission.
The firm’s update stated that the FBI would now have to convince the court why the material should remain protected from public disclosure.
The FBI has argued that it cannot place its complete explanation on the public record because doing so could expose the very information it is seeking to protect.
The agency is relying particularly on FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).
Exemption 7(E) covers certain law-enforcement techniques, procedures and information that could facilitate the circumvention of the law if disclosed. Exemption 7(F), meanwhile, protects information whose release could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
In its filing, the FBI said it had determined that it could not publicly explain the full basis for applying those exemptions to certain withheld information and therefore needed to provide its argument to Judge Howell privately and under seal.
The court’s approval is significant because it allows the judge to examine the FBI’s complete argument and the sensitive material itself before deciding whether the agency’s proposed withholding is justified.
The case stems from FOIA requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who has spent years attempting to obtain historical records from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other US government agencies.
One of Greenspan’s requests seeks what he describes as the “entire FBI file” concerning Tinubu.
Another seeks FBI Form 302 interview records relating to Tinubu and an FBI case covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
Form 302 documents generally contain information recorded by FBI agents following interviews with witnesses, subjects or other individuals during investigations.
Greenspan’s requests form part of a broader effort to uncover records concerning an early-1990s US investigation involving allegations of drug trafficking and money laundering and individuals who were allegedly connected to the investigation.
The latest development follows a major ruling by Judge Howell in April 2025.
US agencies had previously used what is known as a “Glomar response”, under which an agency may, in certain circumstances, refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
Judge Howell rejected the agencies’ position in relation to the disputed records and directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process records that could be released under FOIA.
That ruling did not order the unconditional release of every document requested by Greenspan. Instead, it required the agencies to conduct the searches and apply the relevant FOIA exemptions to individual records or portions of records where appropriate.
The distinction is important because the current dispute is now focused on whether the FBI has adequately justified specific withholdings.
The controversy has also revived attention on a 1990s US civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 in funds associated with Tinubu.
The money was forfeited to the US government in a civil proceeding connected to a narcotics investigation.
However, the forfeiture should not be described as a criminal conviction for drug trafficking.
A civil forfeiture proceeding and a criminal prosecution are legally different processes. Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing.
The historical matter has nevertheless remained politically contentious in Nigeria, particularly since Tinubu became one of the country’s most prominent political figures and eventually president.
The court’s decision to allow the FBI to make a confidential submission does not mean that new evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu has been established.
It also does not mean that the court has ruled that the allegations associated with the historical investigation are true.
Rather, Judge Howell is being asked to determine whether the FBI has complied with the requirements of FOIA and whether its reasons for withholding particular information fall within legally recognised exemptions.
The fact that the FBI has been allowed to present evidence privately should therefore not be interpreted as a judicial finding against the Nigerian president.
The confidential review is essentially a mechanism through which the judge can examine information that the FBI says cannot safely or legally be disclosed publicly.
The FBI is expected to provide its confidential material by August 28, subject to the court’s approval and the terms of the order.
Judge Howell will then have to consider the agency’s arguments and determine whether the claimed exemptions justify withholding the disputed records.
The court could ultimately uphold the FBI’s position, order the release of some or all of the contested information, require additional justification, or determine that portions of the records can be segregated and disclosed while sensitive sections remain protected.
For now, therefore, the most consequential development is not the release of a new FBI file—but the court’s approval for the FBI to take its case into a confidential setting before Judge Howell.
That private judicial review could become a crucial step in determining whether more of the long-sought historical records concerning Tinubu will eventually enter the public domain.
