The development is contained in an application filed on August 20, 2026, in the long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan against the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and other U.S. government agencies.
The FBI is asking U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell to allow it to submit confidential declarations ex parte and in camera—meaning the information would be presented privately to the judge and kept under seal rather than placed on the public record.
According to the filing, Greenspan's requests include the entire FBI file concerning Tinubu, as well as FBI Form 302 interview records involving him from an FBI case covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
FBI Cites Five FOIA Exemptions
The bureau said it has relied on several provisions of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to withhold or redact portions of the requested material, including Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F).
The exemptions cover areas including personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could potentially endanger an individual's life or physical safety.
The FBI said it could not publicly provide its full justification for invoking Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), arguing that doing so could itself reveal the sensitive information the exemptions are intended to protect. It therefore wants to explain its position privately to Judge Howell.
If the court grants the request, the FBI says it expects to submit the confidential declarations by August 28, 2026.
Importantly, the FBI's public filing does not identify Tinubu as the person whose life or physical safety could allegedly be endangered. The reference is to an individual generally, and the confidential explanation has not been made public.
A Three-Year FOIA Battle
The latest development is part of a legal battle that began in 2023, when Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several U.S. agencies seeking historical government records concerning Tinubu and other individuals.
The case has focused on records connected to U.S. investigations dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s, including requests directed to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could not continue relying on so-called “Glomar responses”—a legal position allowing an agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist in certain circumstances. The court ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan's requests.
The litigation has since moved to the question of which records or portions of records can legally remain withheld under FOIA exemptions.
What Happens Next?
The immediate issue before the court is not whether the withheld records prove any allegation against Tinubu. Rather, Judge Howell is being asked to determine whether the FBI should be permitted to make part of its legal justification privately because revealing it publicly could compromise the information the bureau seeks to protect.
Greenspan opposes the FBI's request for a confidential submission, according to the latest filing.
The court's decision on the FBI's request could determine the next stage of the disclosure battle and whether additional explanations surrounding the withheld records will remain confidential or become part of the public court record.
The controversy is likely to attract renewed attention in Nigeria because of the historical nature of the records and the continuing public interest surrounding U.S. investigations involving President Tinubu.
However, the existence of the FOIA litigation, the FBI's decision to withhold records, or its request for confidential judicial review does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu. The records at the centre of the dispute remain subject to the ongoing court process.
0 Comments