Lawyers for Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have asked a federal court in Washington to reject a bid for additional records about him, arguing that the material concerns Tinubu's private life before he entered politics and is protected by privacy laws. The request was made in a filing dated August 28, 2026, in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Tinubu intervened in the lawsuit to protect his interests in records held by the FBI and DEA.
The lawyers argue that the requests seek information about Tinubu contained in government files, including law-enforcement records, rather than material that would show how the agencies performed their duties. They say disclosure could invade the privacy of people named in those files without advancing a public interest recognised under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The filing places particular emphasis on when the records were created, stating that the events at issue predate Tinubu's presidency and that he was a private citizen at the time.
Tinubu's lawyers contend that his later election to public office did not erase the privacy protections that apply to records about his earlier private life. Citing a D.C. Circuit precedent, they say that public officials do not "forfeit their personal privacy for FOIA purposes" because of their positions. The filing also quotes a 2024 district court ruling involving background-check records, arguing that a requester "does not explain how an individual's background investigation files reflect what the government agencies [he] led were 'up to.'"
The filing disputes the reliance on the public-domain doctrine, which suggests that information already officially disclosed may no longer be withheld on the same basis. Tinubu's lawyers argue that the 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds held in accounts bearing his name, and an accompanying affidavit by Special Agent Kevin Moss, revealed only the existence of a forfeiture action. They say those documents did not disclose "the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor."
Tinubu's lawyers rely mainly on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which permits agencies to withhold certain law-enforcement information when disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. They also cite the Privacy Act as an independent basis for protecting information about individuals. The case concerns efforts to obtain records connected to federal investigations into a Chicago-area heroin-trafficking operation in the early 1990s.
The lawyers characterise the requests as seeking information about a private individual rather than evidence of government misconduct. They reject suggestions that the requests are justified by a suspected secret prosecution or cover-up, arguing that claims of government wrongdoing require evidence. A 2025 ruling in the same case distinguished between an agency confirming whether it held records and disclosing the contents of investigative files.
The current dispute is over which records the agencies must release and which may be withheld under privacy and law-enforcement protections. Tinubu's filing presents his lawyers' arguments; it is not a final ruling by the court. The case has significant implications for the balance between transparency and individual privacy in the context of FOIA requests.
Key points
- President Tinubu's lawyers argue that his private life before entering politics is protected by privacy laws.
- The case concerns federal investigations into a Chicago-area heroin-trafficking operation in the early 1990s.
- Tinubu's lawyers rely on FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act to protect information about individuals.
