WASHINGTON, DC — A fresh legal battle over historical United States government records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a more secretive turn, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation asking a federal judge to examine part of its case behind closed doors.
In a four-page motion dated 20 August 2026, the FBI asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to submit confidential declarations ex parte and in camera — meaning privately to the judge and under seal — to explain why portions of records sought by transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan should remain withheld.
The request is at the centre of the long-running case Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), presided over by US District Judge Beryl A. Howell.
The records sought include an FBI file concerning Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records associated with an FBI case dating to 1992–1993. The FBI says some of the information cannot be explained fully on the public record because doing so could reveal law-enforcement techniques and procedures or create a risk to an individual’s safety.
The bureau stated in the motion:
“The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
That wording is significant.
It does not establish that the withheld records contain evidence that Tinubu committed a criminal offence. It does not constitute a new indictment, conviction or finding of criminal liability against Nigeria’s president. Nor does the filing, by itself, explain who might face danger or precisely what information allegedly creates that risk.
What it does demonstrate is that the FBI believes at least some of the material still being withheld requires a level of explanation that, in the agency’s view, cannot safely be placed in the public court record.
That distinction matters enormously in a case where decades-old allegations have repeatedly collided with modern Nigerian politics.
What the FBI is actually asking the judge to do
The FBI is not simply asking Judge Howell to keep the entire body of records permanently secret.
Its immediate application is narrower: permission to place two declarations before the court privately so that the judge can assess the agency’s justification for withholding information.
According to the motion, the bureau anticipates submitting two ex parte, in camera declarations, with one attached as an exhibit to the other.
The filing says the declarations were expected to be submitted by 28 August, subject to the court granting permission.
The distinction between the public and private portions of the case is critical.
An in-camera review is a recognised procedure in US FOIA litigation. The US Department of Justice’s FOIA guidance says courts may review agency material privately where a public explanation could itself reveal the information that the government is seeking to protect. At the same time, DOJ guidance stresses that in-camera review is generally not a substitute for detailed public explanations and should not be used casually.
So the FBI’s application is not unprecedented.
But in this particular case, it lands after Judge Howell had already rejected an earlier attempt by the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration to shield the very existence of records concerning Tinubu through so-called Glomar responses.
That history makes the latest application considerably more consequential.
The 2025 ruling changed the legal landscape
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer simply refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records concerning Tinubu.
The judge concluded that the agencies’ Glomar responses were “improper and must be lifted” and ordered the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s FOIA requests.
That was a major development.
The FBI had initially relied on FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), arguing that even acknowledging the existence of records concerning a third party could invade personal privacy.
Judge Howell rejected that logic in relation to Tinubu because the fact that he had been the subject of an investigation had already been officially acknowledged.
The court found that the FBI and DEA had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of the criminal investigation.
The judge drew a crucial distinction between two different forms of privacy.
One was the privacy interest in concealing the fact of an investigation.
The other was the privacy interest in protecting the contents of investigative files.
The first, Judge Howell concluded, had been substantially weakened because the investigative activity had already become public. The second could still justify individual redactions and withholding where the statutory requirements were satisfied.
That distinction now sits at the heart of the latest FBI move.
The agency is no longer operating from the same position as when it simply said it could neither confirm nor deny whether the records existed.
The court has already ordered it to process non-exempt material.
The dispute has therefore shifted from “Do records exist?” to the more legally intricate question of “Which portions can lawfully remain secret, and why?”
Why Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) matter
The FBI says its latest confidential explanation is needed particularly for FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).
Under US law, Exemption 7(E) protects law-enforcement records where disclosure would reveal investigative techniques and procedures, or guidelines whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
Exemption 7(F) protects law-enforcement information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
The latter is the provision that has generated the most dramatic headline.
The FBI says disclosure could:
“reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
That sentence should be treated with precision.
The FBI has not publicly identified the individual.
It has not publicly explained what particular record, source, interview or operational detail creates the alleged danger.
It has not said that President Tinubu is the person whose safety is at issue.
It has not said that a Nigerian government official, an informant, an FBI agent or any other named individual is endangered.
And the public filing does not establish that the material relates to a continuing criminal investigation.
Those are crucial facts missing from the public record.
Indeed, precisely because the FBI says the detailed explanation itself could expose the protected information, the public is being asked to accept the agency’s legal argument without being shown the most sensitive part of its evidential basis.
That is the tension at the heart of FOIA litigation.
The two records requests at the centre of the dispute
The first FOIA request, 1588244-000, was submitted by Greenspan in March 2023 and sought:
“The entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023.”
The second request, 1593615-000, sought:
“FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993.”
The federal court’s 2025 opinion confirms the existence of both requests and records that the FBI initially responded to each by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
The FBI’s own 2023 FOIA log also identifies Request 1593615 as a Tinubu matter opened on 31 May 2023.
The existence of those requests, therefore, is not merely political speculation. They are part of an actual federal FOIA litigation record.
The Chicago investigation behind the case
The legal dispute is rooted in a US investigation into a Chicago-area heroin trafficking network dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Judge Howell’s 2025 opinion says Greenspan’s FOIA requests concerned a joint investigation involving the FBI, DEA, IRS and US Attorney’s Offices into a Chicago heroin ring and alleged money-laundering activities. The records sought concerned Tinubu and three other individuals: Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Adegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
At the centre of the historical controversy is a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds held in a bank account in Tinubu’s name.
Court records from the Northern District of Illinois show that the United States ultimately obtained forfeiture of $460,000from an account at First Heritage Bank in Tinubu’s name.
The forfeiture decree stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in financial transactions violating federal money-laundering statutes.
That fact has been repeatedly cited in political debate about Tinubu’s past.
But the legal context is equally important.
The proceeding was a civil forfeiture action concerning money, not a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction of Tinubu for drug trafficking.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing.
His position has been that he was never arrested, indicted or convicted in the United States of a narcotics offence and that the forfeiture litigation was brought against the property rather than against him personally.
That distinction should not be blurred.
A civil forfeiture judgment concerning funds and a criminal conviction against an individual are legally different outcomes.
What the 2025 judgment actually said about Tinubu
The April 2025 judgment is perhaps the single most important document for understanding the latest development.
Judge Howell did not rule that Tinubu committed drug trafficking.
Nor did she find him criminally liable.
Rather, she ruled that the FBI and DEA had failed to justify their use of a Glomar response to conceal whether records concerning Tinubu existed.
The court found that the agencies had already effectively acknowledged the relevant investigative activity and could not continue relying on privacy interests to hide that fact. It therefore directed the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records.
The distinction between investigative evidence and adjudicated guilt is vital.
The mere existence of an FBI record does not establish the truth of every allegation contained within it.
FBI files can contain allegations, leads, witness statements, rejected theories, intelligence reports and material gathered during investigations. The evidentiary value of each document must be assessed on its own terms.
That is precisely why the battle over access matters.
The public dispute is not simply about whether a file exists. It is about what the file contains, what can legally be disclosed, what must be redacted, and what a court ultimately finds sufficiently protected under FOIA.
Tinubu’s intervention and the political dimension
Tinubu formally intervened in the FOIA litigation in 2023.
The federal docket records that he filed a motion to intervene in October of that year and that Judge Howell subsequently granted the motion. The court directed him to follow the same deadlines applicable to the federal defendants.
That intervention means the president has been more than a passive subject of the dispute.
His legal team has been participating in procedural aspects of the litigation, including a recent request to keep his schedule aligned with that of the US government.
Recent reporting confirmed that Tinubu joined the Department of Justice’s request for a 10-day extension to respond to the court’s latest proceedings. Judge Howell declined to grant the full extension and set 21 August 2026 as the operative deadline.
The move has become politically charged because the firm publicising the latest filings, Von Batten-Montague-York, has been associated with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, an anticipated 2027 presidential challenger to Tinubu.
That political connection requires careful handling.
The firm’s campaign for disclosure may be politically motivated. That does not make the underlying court filings false.
Conversely, Tinubu’s participation in a procedural request for additional time does not by itself establish that he is attempting to suppress evidence of criminal conduct.
Those are separate propositions.
The most explosive line is also the least explained
The words “endanger the life or physical safety” have understandably generated headlines.
But the investigative question should be more demanding than the headline.
Whose life?
Which record?
What information would create the danger?
Is the alleged risk current or historical?
Does it concern a source, an agent, a witness, an investigative technique, or another individual?
What portion can be segregated and released without creating that risk?
The current public filing does not answer those questions.
That is why the FBI’s proposed private declarations could become important.
Judge Howell will have the opportunity to see the explanation that the public cannot.
And that creates a paradox: the more persuasive the FBI’s justification becomes, the less of that justification may be capable of being publicly disclosed.
The DOJ’s own FOIA guidance acknowledges that agencies may seek in-camera review where further public explanation could reveal the very information they are seeking to protect. But the same guidance also recognises that courts generally expect agencies to make as complete a public record as reasonably possible before resorting to secret submissions.
What the latest filing does not prove
There are at least five conclusions that should not be drawn from the FBI’s motion alone.
First, it does not prove that Tinubu committed drug trafficking.
Second, it does not establish that a new criminal investigation into Tinubu is underway.
Third, it does not establish that the FBI is hiding evidence of a crime committed by the Nigerian president.
Fourth, it does not establish that Tinubu himself is the person whose safety could allegedly be endangered.
Fifth, it does not mean that every withheld document will remain secret permanently.
The FBI is asking for judicial permission to explain the basis for particular withholdings in private.
The final decision on whether those withholdings comply with FOIA remains a judicial question.
A second constitutional-sized question: transparency versus protection
There is a broader issue beneath the Tinubu controversy.
FOIA is designed to give the public access to federal records, but Congress also built exceptions into the law precisely because government records can contain sensitive law-enforcement information.
The courts therefore have to perform a balancing exercise.
In the Tinubu litigation, Judge Howell previously emphasised that the public interest in FOIA includes citizens’ right to know what their government is doing. The court nevertheless recognised that legitimate privacy and law-enforcement protections continue to apply to the contents of investigative files.
The latest FBI application effectively asks the judge to conduct part of that balancing exercise without exposing the sensitive material to Greenspan or the general public.
Greenspan opposes the request.
The filing says:
“Plaintiff has advised that he opposes the relief requested herein.”
That disagreement is not a side issue.
An ex parte process means one side may be providing the judge with evidence that the opposing party cannot see. Courts allow that in carefully defined circumstances, but it inevitably raises questions about adversarial fairness and the ability of the requester to test the government’s claims.
That is why a sealed declaration is not the end of the FOIA argument. It is another stage in it.
The procedural clock now matters
The FBI said it expected to submit its two confidential declarations by 28 August 2026, subject to permission.
Some Nigerian media reports published on 21 August said Judge Howell had granted the FBI permission for the private submission. However, the publicly indexed sources reviewed for this report do not yet provide a directly accessible copy of a signed order conclusively establishing the precise terms of such an order.
That distinction should be preserved until the docket itself confirms it.
The significance of the 28 August date is therefore best understood as the FBI’s proposed filing timetable rather than proof, on its own, of a final ruling on disclosure.
The next major question is not merely whether the declarations are filed.
It is what Judge Howell does with them.
Why this matters before Nigeria’s 2027 election
The timing could hardly be more politically sensitive.
Tinubu is seeking a second term in 2027, while Atiku and other opposition figures are positioning themselves for the presidential contest.
Any release of additional US law-enforcement records concerning Tinubu’s years in America is likely to become political ammunition.
But there is a danger in allowing an unresolved legal process to become a substitute for evidence.
A document can be authentic yet contain allegations that were never proved.
A court can order disclosure without endorsing the contents of the documents released.
An FBI withholding can be legally justified without proving that the underlying allegations are true.
And a presidential denial can remain politically forceful without resolving every factual question raised by a historical investigation.
The responsible journalistic task is to separate those categories.
The real story is now bigger than Tinubu
The most important development in this case may ultimately be less about what happened in Chicago three decades ago and more about what the US government’s current legal position tells the public about the remaining records.
In 2025, Judge Howell rejected the government’s attempt to keep the existence of Tinubu-related FBI and DEA records behind a Glomar wall and ordered the agencies to process non-exempt material.
In August 2026, the FBI says it has reached a point where it cannot publicly explain all of its withholding rationale without exposing information it considers sensitive enough to warrant confidential judicial examination.
Those two positions are not necessarily contradictory.
The 2025 ruling removed one barrier: the government could no longer use a blanket refusal to acknowledge the records.
The 2026 motion invokes another set of statutory protections concerning the contents of particular records.
That is where the next legal battle lies.
And this time, Judge Howell may be required to decide what the public is entitled to know after hearing an argument that the public itself may never see.
For a Nigerian president facing a politically combustible election cycle, the implications are obvious.
For the United States government, the stakes are different but equally serious: it must demonstrate that secrecy is being used to protect legitimate law-enforcement interests rather than to shield embarrassment, political inconvenience or historical controversy.
For the court, the test is narrower still.
The question is whether the FBI has met the requirements of American FOIA law.
Until Judge Howell rules on that question — and until any releasable records are actually produced — the public should resist the temptation to fill the remaining blacked-out pages with assumptions.
The FBI has raised the language of danger.
It has not yet publicly explained the danger.
And that missing explanation may now be the most consequential document in the entire Tinubu records saga.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
