By: Manoah Kikekon
President Bola Tinubu has approached a United States federal court with a formal request to prevent the further release of investigative records tied to past inquiries from the early 1990s. Intervening directly in an ongoing legal battle, the Nigerian leader argued that disclosing these files would constitute an unwarranted violation of his personal privacy rights.
The legal tussle stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, founder of the transparency platform PlainSite. Greenspan had submitted multiple requests to several US agencies—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—seeking documents connected to a historical Chicago-based drug investigation.
While various agencies initially issued "Glomar" responses declining to confirm or deny the existence of the records, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in April 2025 that the FBI and DEA had improperly withheld confirmation, subsequently ordering them to search for and process non-exempt documents. Although thousands of pages were eventually produced with varying degrees of redactions, Greenspan pushed for summary judgment to compel fuller disclosures.
In a fresh 16-page filing submitted through his legal team, President Tinubu urged the court to reject Greenspan’s motion and allow the existing redactions and withholdings to remain intact. His lawyers maintained that FOIA was designed strictly to shed light on government operations, rather than serve as a mechanism to mine private personal information stored within public archives.
Invoking US Supreme Court precedent alongside FOIA Exemption 7(C) which shields law enforcement records from disclosures that invade personal privacy the defense team emphasized that individual privacy interests persist even when limited files or historical disclosures have previously entered public view.
“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining information the government collected about private individuals,” Tinubu’s legal team argued in court filings.
Addressing arguments surrounding his status as Nigeria's head of state, Tinubu’s counsel dismissed claims that public curiosity or political background checks constitute the type of "public interest" recognized under FOIA statutes.
They characterized allegations of a government cover-up or secret prosecution as unsubstantiated claims meant to override statutory privacy protections.