President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States court to block the release of records held by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to allegations of drug trafficking.
Tinubu’s lawyers, Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi, in a 16-page court filing, argued that releasing the records could infringe on the President’s privacy rights.
The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against several US government agencies seeking documents relating to investigations involving Tinubu.
“Submission in that proceeding did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor. Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor. (DE 85-3, No. 16.)”, one of the documents said.
“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent.
“The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are ‘scattered’ disclosures of information from that same file. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 764-67 (“our cases have recognized the privacy interests inherent in the non-disclosure of certain information even where the information may have been public at one time.).
“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed.
“Applying the Reporter’s Committee, this Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).
“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as ‘distinct’ from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (‘Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’)
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff.
“Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of Plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s overarching goal.
“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.
Tinubu has previously denied any wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.
About the Author
