President Bola Tinubu has moved to stop the release of U.S. government records linked to allegations of drug trafficking and investigations dating back to the early 1990s.
Tinubu, through his lawyers, is challenging efforts by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain the records from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Greenspan had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking documents relating to investigations involving the Nigerian president.
Among the records being sought are what Greenspan describes as the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview records covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
The case also involves records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 allegedly linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
In a 16-page court filing dated August 28, 2026, his legal team — Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi — urged the court to protect the president’s privacy and prevent the disclosure of the investigative records.
The lawyers argued that information previously made public during the forfeiture proceedings did not disclose the details or outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving Tinubu.
They maintained that Greenspan’s lawsuit is specifically aimed at uncovering information that has not previously been made public.
According to the lawyers, the fact that certain information may have appeared in public records does not mean Tinubu has lost his privacy interest in the government’s wider investigative files.
They cited several U.S. court decisions, including a Supreme Court ruling which recognised that a person can retain a privacy interest in government records even where portions of the information may have been publicly disclosed in the past.
Tinubu’s lawyers also cited Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, arguing that an individual’s privacy rights can survive even where that person has previously been publicly associated with allegations of criminal activity.
Another case cited in the filing, Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Justice, was used to draw a distinction between the fact that someone was investigated and the confidential details contained in the government’s investigative files.
The lawyers argued that previous disclosures arising from the 1993 forfeiture case should therefore not be interpreted as giving the public unrestricted access to the underlying FBI, DOJ or DEA investigative records.
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” the lawyers stated.
The latest court filing does not establish that Tinubu committed drug trafficking or any other crime. It represents his legal team’s argument against the release of the records.
The court is yet to make a final determination on whether the requested documents should be disclosed.
The case could, however, open a fresh chapter in the long-running controversy surrounding the records of Tinubu’s activities in the United States during the early 1990s.