Tinubu Heads to US Court to Block Release of FBI Drug Records

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to stop the release of records linked to old investigations involving allegations of drug trafficking.

Tinubu, through his lawyers, is opposing efforts by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain documents held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other US government agencies.

The latest move came in a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Court documents filed on Friday, August 28, showed that Tinubu wants the court to reject Greenspan’s request for the release of records containing his name and details from investigative files.

His legal team argued that releasing the documents could violate his privacy rights, even where some information connected to the matter has previously appeared in public records.

The lawyers also urged the court to allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their existing redactions and withholdings.

The case was initiated by Greenspan, who has been seeking records relating to US investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals dating back to the early 1990s.

Among the records requested by Greenspan are the FBI’s complete file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to the period between 1992 and 1993.

The requests also touch on a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 connected to Tinubu.

Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing in relation to the allegations.

Tinubu challenges release of investigative files

In the latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the fact that some information may have appeared in earlier court proceedings does not mean that all related investigative materials should now become public.

They maintained that a person could still have a privacy interest in information contained in a wider government file, even if limited details from the same matter had previously been disclosed.

The lawyers relied on previous decisions of US courts and the Supreme Court to support the argument.

They said the purpose of Greenspan’s latest request was essentially to obtain information that had not previously been made public.

The legal team stated:

“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.”

Tinubu is listed as an intervenor in the case after successfully seeking to participate in the proceedings over concerns about the release of information concerning him.

His lawyers further argued that earlier disclosure of limited information from the forfeiture proceeding did not remove his privacy rights over the remaining investigative records.

They cited the US Supreme Court’s decision in Reporters Committee and other federal court rulings to argue that privacy protections can remain in place even when pieces of information from a government file have previously become public.

The lawyers said:

“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff.”

Greenspan seeks FBI and DEA records

Greenspan’s FOIA case has been before the US court for several years.

His requests cover records held by multiple US government agencies concerning investigations dating to the early 1990s.

One of the requests sought the entire FBI file relating to Tinubu.

Another sought FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu during the 1992-1993 period.

Form 302 is generally used by the FBI to record information obtained during interviews conducted as part of investigations.

The FBI and DEA have relied on several FOIA exemptions in seeking to withhold or redact portions of the records.

The FBI recently asked the court for permission to submit some of its explanations privately and under seal.

The agency said it could not place the full basis for some of its claimed exemptions on the public record.

The request involved what is known as an ex parte, in camera submission, allowing the judge to review sensitive material privately.

The legal battle

The latest filing by Tinubu comes as the FOIA case enters another important stage.

US District Judge Beryl Howell has been overseeing the proceedings and previously directed the government agencies and Tinubu to respond to the dispute over the requested records.

The court had set August 28 as a deadline for the relevant parties to file their positions concerning the release of the records.

Tinubu’s lawyers used the latest filing to challenge Greenspan’s arguments on the adequacy of the FBI’s search, the DEA’s handling of its records and the exemptions relied upon to keep certain information from public view.

They argued that Greenspan’s filings showed a particular interest in documents containing Tinubu’s name.

The lawyers said this should not, by itself, give the plaintiff access to material protected under US privacy and law enforcement provisions.

They stated:

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them.’”

They added that challenges to the government’s handling of the records should not be used as a means of obtaining information that would otherwise be protected.

According to the legal team:

“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.’”

What the case is about

The dispute does not amount to a criminal conviction against Tinubu in the United States.

The records being sought relate to historical investigations and government proceedings from the early 1990s.

The $460,000 issue is connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the US. Tinubu has previously maintained that the matter did not amount to a criminal conviction against him.

The current court fight is instead centred on whether the US government should release records requested under FOIA and whether privacy and law enforcement exemptions allow the agencies to keep some or all of the material confidential.

The FBI has also raised concerns about the possible consequences of releasing certain sensitive information.

In an earlier filing, the agency argued that some withheld material could reveal law enforcement techniques and potentially put individuals at risk.

That development prompted the FBI to seek permission to provide additional explanations to the judge privately.

In their final submission, Tinubu’s lawyers asked the court to reject Greenspan’s motion.

“Conclusion 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”, Tinubu’s legal team argued.

The court’s eventual decision will determine whether more of the requested records are made public or whether the existing redactions and withholdings remain in place.