Tinubu asks US court to block release of FBI, DEA records on him

President Bola Tinubu has asked a US court to block the release of records held by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to allegations of drug trafficking.

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.

Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records concerning the period between 1992 and 1993. The case also involves records allegedly connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

According to 16-page court documents filed by his legal team, Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi, Tinubu argued that releasing the records could infringe on his privacy rights. The legal team argued that the records sought by Greenspan contain information that is not already part of the public record.

“Submitted 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,” the filing said.

The lawyers argued that previous disclosures connected to the forfeiture proceeding did not eliminate Tinubu’s privacy interests in the broader investigative files. “The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public,” the filing said.

The legal team also cited a US Supreme Court precedent to argue that a person can retain privacy interests in an entire government file even when some information from the same file has previously been disclosed. “While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed,” the lawyers argued.

They further cited previous court decisions involving government investigative records, arguing that being publicly associated with an investigation does not remove an individual’s privacy rights over the contents of the investigative files.

“Although the names of Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation,’” the filing quoted an earlier court decision as saying. Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” Tinubu’s lawyers argued.

The legal team also challenged Greenspan’s attempts to obtain records through FOIA, arguing that his filings showed a particular focus on documents containing Tinubu’s name. “Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the filing said.

The lawyers argued that such a focus should not allow Greenspan to obtain documents that are otherwise protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions or the Privacy Act. “If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” they argued.

Tinubu’s legal team asked the court to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their existing redactions or withholdings. “For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand,” the filing said.