US GOVERNMENT MOVES TO KEEP PARTS OF TINUBU FBI AND DEA RECORDS SECRET AS COURT BATTLE INTENSIFIES

The United States government is pushing back against an attempt to force the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration to disclose additional portions of historical law-enforcement records concerning Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, asking a federal judge to uphold the agencies' decision to keep sensitive material secret.

In a September 23 filing before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the government defended the FBI and DEA's handling of records sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the Freedom of Information Act.

The filing asks the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies, arguing that their searches for responsive records were adequate and that information withheld from the documents is protected under US law.

The government says some of the material cannot be publicly released because it involves grand-jury information, confidential law-enforcement sources, investigative techniques, personal privacy and information whose disclosure could create safety concerns.

The legal battle concerns access to government records.

It is not a criminal prosecution of President Tinubu, and the latest filing does not establish historical allegations concerning him as fact.

FBI AND DEA DEFEND THEIR REDACTIONS

At the center of the dispute is the question of how much information contained in the historical FBI and DEA files should be made public.

The agencies have already processed and released hundreds of pages.

According to information previously disclosed in the proceedings, the FBI and DEA have produced approximately 399 pages, although portions of those records remain redacted or withheld.

Greenspan is challenging some of those decisions and seeking greater disclosure.

The US government argues that the agencies have complied with their obligations under FOIA and properly applied statutory exemptions to information that should remain protected.

Among the exemptions being invoked are protections covering confidential sources and non-public investigative techniques.

The DEA argues that revealing certain information could expose individuals who provided information to law enforcement.

It also maintains that disclosure of some investigative material could reveal techniques and procedures that are not publicly known.

GOVERNMENT SEEKS SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The September 23 filing asks the federal court to resolve the remaining dispute in favor of the government without proceeding to a full trial on the FOIA claims.

Summary judgment is a procedure through which a court can decide a case, or particular issues within it, when the judge determines there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial over material facts relevant to the legal question.

In this case, the government wants the court to conclude that the FBI and DEA conducted adequate searches and lawfully withheld the disputed information.

Greenspan has challenged aspects of the agencies' explanations and is seeking additional disclosure.

It will ultimately be for the federal court to determine whether the agencies properly applied the FOIA exemptions.

WHAT THE LATEST FILING DOES NOT REVEAL

Despite the intense political attention surrounding the case in Nigeria, the September 23 filing does not publicly reveal the substance of the information that remains hidden.

It does not disclose what confidential sources may have told US investigators.

It does not reveal the full contents of the investigative reports.

It does not establish that investigators found President Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

And it does not amount to a criminal charge or prosecution against the Nigerian president.

The significance of the filing is instead that the US government is formally defending the FBI and DEA's legal authority to keep certain information inside the records from public disclosure.

RECORDS INCLUDE FORMAL DEA INVESTIGATIVE MATERIAL

Court filings have provided some information about the types of records involved.

The DEA's materials reportedly include DEA-6, DEA-292 and DEA-210 reports.

The government argues that because many of the documents contain similar categories of investigative information, the legal explanations for withholding portions of them can also be similar.

One of the most sensitive areas concerns confidential sources.

The DEA maintains that information connected to those sources could reveal their identities.

The agency has also invoked protections covering non-public investigative techniques used during law-enforcement operations.

But the existence of those protections does not itself establish what investigators concluded about any individual mentioned in the records.

HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION AT CENTER OF FOIA BATTLE

The wider FOIA litigation involves requests for historical US government records connected to investigations dating back decades.

Earlier court proceedings addressed requests concerning Tinubu, Abiodun Agbele and other individuals referenced in records associated with an investigation into an alleged drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation.

In April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell rejected an attempt by the FBI and DEA to rely entirely on a so-called Glomar response, under which an agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.

The litigation subsequently moved toward processing and reviewing the records themselves.

That shift has transformed the dispute.

The central question is no longer simply whether responsive records exist.

It is increasingly about what portions of those records the public is legally entitled to see.

SOME FBI MATERIAL HAS BEEN SHOWN PRIVATELY TO THE JUDGE

Another important development occurred in August.

The FBI submitted records to Judge Howell under seal for private judicial review.

The material was provided ex parte and in camera, meaning the judge could examine it without releasing it to Greenspan or the public.

That process allows the court to inspect sensitive material while deciding whether the government's claimed FOIA exemptions are legally justified.

The records therefore remain subject to judicial scrutiny even where the public cannot currently see them.

PRESIDENCY SAYS CASE IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL

Nigeria's Presidency has previously responded to reports surrounding the litigation by emphasizing that President Tinubu is not facing a criminal prosecution in the case.

The Presidency described the proceedings as a civil records-disclosure dispute under the Freedom of Information Act.

That characterization of the nature of the current lawsuit is consistent with the federal court proceedings.

FOIA allows individuals to seek records held by US federal agencies and permits agencies to withhold certain categories of protected information.

A court deciding whether an agency properly withheld information is therefore determining a records-access dispute.

It is not determining Tinubu's criminal guilt or innocence.

COURT WILL DECIDE HOW MUCH REMAINS SECRET

The latest filing brings the long-running records battle closer to another important judicial decision.

Greenspan wants greater access to the historical material.

The FBI and DEA maintain that they have disclosed what the law requires and that the remaining protected information should stay hidden.

The US Attorney's Office is now defending that position before the court.

Judge Howell will ultimately determine whether the agencies' searches were adequate and whether their redactions and withholdings comply with federal law.

Until then, the existence of withheld investigative material should not be confused with proof of the historical allegations that have generated intense political debate in Nigeria.

What the September 23 filing establishes is considerably narrower.

The US government has records.

Hundreds of pages have been processed.

Some information remains secret.

And Washington is asking a federal judge to allow it to stay that way.