TINUBU’S LAWYERS ACKNOWLEDGE ERRORS IN U.S. COURT FILING OVER HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION RECORDS
Lawyers representing Nigerian President Bola Tinubu have acknowledged errors in an earlier filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and asked the court for permission to replace it with an amended version. The filing is part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case brought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan seeking records from U.S. government agencies concerning Tinubu and others. Tinubu’s lawyers said the earlier submission contained incorrect or inadequate references involving 1993, Tinubu’s public office and a comparison involving student enrollment. They said the mistakes occurred during drafting and revision and did not change the substance of their legal argument. The case is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not amount to a criminal prosecution of President Tinubu.
Lawyers representing Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have acknowledged errors in an earlier filing before a United States federal court and asked for permission to replace the document with a corrected version.
The request was filed on October 1 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the ongoing case Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al.
The case concerns requests made under the United States Freedom of Information Act for government records relating to Tinubu and other individuals.
LAWYERS SAY EARLIER FILING CONTAINED ERRORS
Tinubu’s legal team asked the court to allow an amended response to replace an earlier brief filed in the case.
The lawyers acknowledged that part of their previous argument had been expressed inadequately and incorrectly.
The issues concerned references to events in 1993, Tinubu’s status as a public official and a comparison involving student enrollment.
They said the mistakes occurred during the drafting and revision process and were not discovered before the earlier filing was submitted.
CORRECTIONS DO NOT CHANGE LEGAL ARGUMENT, LAWYERS SAY
Tinubu’s legal team stressed that the requested corrections do not change the substance of their argument.
Their central position remains that historical law enforcement records involving events from decades ago continue to carry privacy protections even though Tinubu later became President of Nigeria.
The lawyers argue that his current public office does not automatically eliminate privacy interests connected to earlier investigative records.
DISPUTE CENTERS ON HISTORICAL U.S. RECORDS
The case was brought by Aaron Greenspan, an American researcher and transparency activist.
Greenspan has been seeking records from U.S. agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
His requests concern historical investigative records from the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The lawsuit also covers records associated with a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
THIS IS A CIVIL FOIA CASE
An important distinction is that the current court case is not a criminal prosecution against President Tinubu.
It is a civil lawsuit concerning access to government records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
The court is being asked to determine what information federal agencies must disclose and what information can legally remain withheld or redacted.
No criminal charge against Tinubu is being decided in this proceeding.
TINUBU CONTINUES TO DENY WRONGDOING
Tinubu has denied allegations of criminal wrongdoing connected to the historical events at issue.
His lawyers argue that the existence of government records or earlier investigations does not itself establish criminal conduct.
They have also challenged efforts to use the FOIA process to obtain information they say remains legally protected.
EARLIER FILING REFERRED TO PUBLIC OFFICE
One of the issues corrected by the lawyers involved the way the earlier filing described Tinubu’s status during the period under discussion.
The legal team said its intended point was that the underlying investigative events occurred decades before Tinubu became President of Nigeria.
However, the earlier wording concerning public office and 1993 was later challenged.
Tinubu had entered Nigerian politics by that period and had been elected to the Senate in 1992.
The lawyers therefore asked the court to allow them to correct the wording while preserving their broader privacy argument.
STUDENT COMPARISON ALSO CORRECTED
A separate correction involved a comparison between the age of the investigative records and Tinubu’s time as a student.
The lawyers acknowledged that the comparison was incorrect because the student enrollment period occurred earlier than the events involved in the records dispute.
They attributed the error to the drafting and editing process.
GREENSPAN DID NOT OPPOSE CORRECTION
According to the motion, Tinubu’s lawyers discussed the proposed corrections with Greenspan before filing their request.
The filing states that Greenspan did not oppose correcting the brief.
That does not mean the parties agree on the underlying dispute over disclosure of the records.
Their disagreement over how much information should be made public remains unresolved.
FBI AND DEA REDACTIONS REMAIN CENTRAL ISSUE
Tinubu’s lawyers continue to support the FBI and DEA’s decision to withhold or redact portions of the records.
They rely partly on privacy protections available under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
One of the key exemptions involved is FOIA Exemption 7(C), which allows agencies to protect personal information contained in law enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
COURT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BLANKET SECRECY
In April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely entirely on a blanket refusal to confirm or deny whether certain records existed.
That ruling did not require every requested document to be released without redaction.
Instead, the litigation moved toward determining which specific information may still be withheld under applicable exemptions.
AGENCIES HAVE PRODUCED HUNDREDS OF PAGES
U.S. agencies have produced hundreds of pages of material in response to the litigation.
Some portions remain redacted.
Greenspan is asking the court to require additional disclosure.
Tinubu’s lawyers are arguing that remaining redactions should be protected because they involve personal privacy and law enforcement information.
PROPOSED ORDER DOES NOT MEAN JUDGE HAS RULED
Tinubu’s lawyers attached a proposed order asking the judge to approve the amendment.
That document should not be confused with an actual court ruling.
A proposed order is a document submitted for the judge’s consideration.
The version cited in current reporting contains space for the judge’s signature and does not itself establish that the motion has already been granted.
WHY THE ERRORS MATTER
Court filings are expected to accurately present relevant facts and legal arguments.
Errors involving dates or a person’s public status can become important when privacy interests are being balanced against the public interest in disclosure.
That explains why Greenspan highlighted the issues and why Tinubu’s lawyers moved to correct them.
The corrections do not themselves resolve the wider legal dispute.
PRIVACY REMAINS CENTRAL TO TINUBU’S POSITION
Tinubu’s legal team argues that becoming President decades later does not automatically erase privacy rights connected to older records.
They maintain that the records concern events from a period long before his presidency.
Greenspan, on the other hand, is seeking broader disclosure and argues that the public interest justifies greater access.
The court will have to determine how U.S. transparency law applies to the disputed material.
CIVIL FORFEITURE IS NOT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION
The 1993 proceeding often referenced in connection with the dispute was a civil forfeiture matter.
Civil forfeiture and criminal conviction are legally different.
A civil forfeiture proceeding concerns property or funds and does not by itself establish that the person associated with those assets was criminally convicted.
That distinction remains important in reporting on the case.
POLITICAL ATTENTION IN NIGERIA REMAINS HIGH
The litigation has attracted significant attention in Nigeria because Tinubu is the sitting president and the records concern events from decades before he entered the presidency.
Political opponents and supporters have interpreted developments differently.
For news reporting, the relevant facts remain the court filings, agency disclosures and judicial rulings rather than political claims surrounding them.
WHAT IS CONFIRMED
Tinubu’s lawyers acknowledged errors in an earlier court filing.
The errors involved references concerning 1993, public office and student enrollment.
They asked the court on October 1 for permission to replace the earlier brief with a corrected version.
They said the corrections do not change the substance of their legal argument.
WHAT THE FILING DOES NOT ESTABLISH
The correction does not amount to an admission that Tinubu committed a crime.
The FOIA lawsuit is not a criminal prosecution.
The existence of historical investigative records does not automatically establish criminal guilt.
The filing also does not establish that the judge has already approved the amended response.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Judge Beryl Howell will determine how the amended filing is treated and whether the remaining FBI and DEA redactions comply with U.S. law.
The larger dispute will continue to focus on the balance between public access to government information and individual privacy protections.
For Tinubu’s legal team, the immediate issue is correcting the record while preserving its argument that decades old investigative information should remain protected.
For Greenspan, the objective remains broader disclosure of the historical government records.
