FBI Asks US Court To Keep Certain Tinubu-Related Records Confidential In Ongoing FOIA Case
A long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in Washington, D.C. has taken a new turn, after the FBI asked a US federal court for permission to privately explain, to the judge alone, why it’s withholding certain records connected to President Bola Tinubu.
What The FBI Actually Filed
In a four-page motion dated August 20, 2026, filed before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in the case Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, et al., the FBI asked for permission to submit what’s known as an “ex parte, in camera” declaration a written explanation given privately and directly to the presiding judge, Beryl Howell, rather than placed on the public record or shared with the opposing party. The agency said it could not publicly disclose its full reasoning for withholding certain records without potentially revealing law enforcement techniques and procedures, or, in its words, endangering the life or physical safety of individuals.
It’s important to be precise here: this filing does not confirm or establish that Tinubu committed any offence. It’s a procedural request about how the FBI is allowed to justify withholding specific records under FOIA exemptions not a disclosure of the records’ contents or a finding of wrongdoing.
The Case Behind This Filing
This all stems from a FOIA lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, founder of the transparency platform PlainSite. Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted twelve separate FOIA requests to six US federal agencies including the FBI, DEA, IRS, State Department, and CIA seeking records tied to an alleged Chicago-based heroin trafficking ring that operated in the early 1990s. His requests named four individuals allegedly connected to that investigation: Tinubu, along with Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
Several agencies initially responded with what’s called a “Glomar response” a formal refusal to even confirm or deny whether responsive records existed. Greenspan challenged this, and in April 2025, Judge Howell ruled against the continued use of that Glomar response by the FBI and DEA specifically, finding they hadn’t shown sufficient legal grounds for withholding confirmation of the records’ existence. Since that ruling, the case has moved through additional procedural stages, including agencies requesting extended timelines to complete searches and respond.
The Records Being Sought Cover 1992 To 1993
According to reporting on the case, the FBI confirmed it had invoked several FOIA exemptions specifically in response to requests for records covering the period from 1992 to 1993. The agency’s stated justification centres on protecting investigative methods and the safety of individuals potentially named or referenced in the withheld material standard categories of exemption under US FOIA law, though the specific reasoning in this case remains confidential pending the judge’s review.
Political Context Around The Filing
The case has drawn added political attention because the FBI’s motion was made public via a post on X from Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm that has been retained by former Nigerian Vice President and ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 Nigerian presidential election. That same firm had previously alleged, in a separate filing, that Tinubu had personally joined the Department of Justice’s request for additional time before records were released though those claims about his specific intentions were described as an inference by the firm rather than something established directly in the court filing itself. The DOJ’s request for a 10-day extension was only partially granted, with Judge Howell allowing four additional days instead.
What Happens Next
Based on current filings, the FBI has indicated it intends to provide its confidential declaration to the court by August 28, 2026, subject to the judge’s approval of its request. Until then, the specific reasoning behind the FBI’s withholding of these particular records remains sealed and unavailable to the public.
Wahala Network Take
This is a genuinely significant legal development, but it’s important to be precise about what it actually is: a procedural motion about how the FBI can justify withholding records under US transparency law — not a confirmation of any allegation against President Tinubu. Given the political stakes heading into 2027, and the involvement of a lobbying firm working for a rival presidential candidate, this case is likely to keep generating headlines regardless of how the underlying FOIA dispute is ultimately resolved. We’ll continue following this story as it develops.
