The FBI has asked a US court to keep part of an old records dispute involving President Bola Tinubu out of public view, saying a full public explanation could expose investigative methods and endanger people.
In a motion filed on August 20 at the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the bureau asked to give the judge extra details privately through an ex parte, in camera submission. That means the material would go only to the judge and would not become part of the public record.
The filing is the latest turn in a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) battle over records linked to a 1990s heroin-trafficking investigation.
The FBI said some of the withheld material could reveal law-enforcement techniques, while other parts could put individuals at risk if released. It added that it cannot fully explain its use of FOIA exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) without exposing the information it is trying to protect.
If the court agrees, the FBI said it will submit its sealed declaration by August 28.
According to another online media, The PUNCH, one of the FOIA requests sought the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu, while another requested FBI interview reports from 1992 to 1993.
How The Case Began
The dispute began in 2022 and 2023, when Aaron Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, filed 12 FOIA requests with six federal agencies. He sought records tied to four people, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Several agencies first used a Glomar response, which means they would neither confirm nor deny whether the records exist. Greenspan challenged that position and later sued after the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy upheld the agencies’ stance.
In April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell ruled against the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on their continued use of the Glomar response, saying they had not shown enough legal reason to hide even the existence of the records.
What FOIA Allows
FOIA is the US law that lets the public ask federal agencies for records, but it also allows agencies to withhold material in some cases. Common reasons include privacy, safety, and law-enforcement concerns.
That balance is now at the centre of the Tinubu records dispute. The FBI says its sealed filing is needed because a public explanation would itself reveal what it is trying to protect.
The case has also seen deadline pressure. The Justice Department asked for a 10-day extension to respond to a court order, but Judge Howell granted only four extra days and kept August 21 as the deadline.
Tinubu’s legal team later joined the Justice Department’s request for more time, but the judge rejected the longer extension. The court must now decide whether the FBI can keep its fuller justification under seal.
For now, the case remains a test of how far US transparency law can go when agencies argue that openness could expose sensitive investigative work.
