The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has filed a motion seeking permission to submit, ex parte and in camera, declarations explaining why it withheld information from its investigative records relating to allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Tinubu.
An ex parte in camera declaration is a written statement submitted by one party solely to a judge and not made available publicly.
In an application dated August 20, the FBI told the US District Court for the District of Columbia that it could not publicly explain all the reasons for withholding certain records, hence its request to submit an ex parte in camera declaration.
A copy of the application was published on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate for the 2027 election, Atiku Abubakar.
The FBI said it had invoked various Freedom of Information Act exemptions in response to requests for Tinubu-related records from 1992 to 1993.
The US law enforcement agency said releasing the information “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
Part of the FBI’s application read, “One of the requests at issue is the request assigned Request Number 1588244-000, which sought ‘the entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023’.”
The agency said the plaintiff also submitted a second FOIA request seeking “FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993.”
That request was assigned Request Number 1593615-000.
The FBI said it invoked various FOIA exemptions, including Sections 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F), in relation to the requests.
It said it had determined that the information withheld from the plaintiff, if disclosed, could, among other things, reveal law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures or reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
“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,” the agency said.
The FBI said that if the court grants permission to submit the declaration, it would explain its reasons for withholding certain information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American businessman and founder of PlainSite.
The development came after the US Department of Justice recently requested an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records related to allegations of drug trafficking involving Tinubu.
However, Judge Beryl Howell granted only four additional days, extending the deadline to August 21.
Tinubu, through his legal team, subsequently joined the US DOJ’s request for an additional 10-day extension to respond to the court order.
Howell was reported to have declined Tinubu’s request.
In 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 FOIA requests with six different US federal agencies seeking information from criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
Greenspan sought investigative records concerning four individuals allegedly associated with the drug ring, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the US agencies responded that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan approached the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy.
The OIP affirmed the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, according to court documents.
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the agencies’ “Glomar response” to his FOIA requests.
A Glomar response is an official statement by a US government agency refusing to confirm or deny whether requested records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State were initially named as defendants.
The CIA was later named as a defendant in the first amended complaint.
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted.”
The judge said the FBI and DEA failed to provide information to “establish [that a] cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation.”
Howell also held that the two agencies had failed to provide evidence demonstrating the burden of sustaining their Glomar responses.
We’ve got the edge. Get real-time reports, breaking scoops, and exclusive angles delivered straight to your phone. Don’t settle for stale news. Join THISTIMES on WhatsApp for 24/7 updates →
Join Our WhatsApp Channel
