Tinubu Drug Records: US Judge Allows FBI to Submit Sensitive Files for Private Review

A long-running legal battle over US government records connected to a 1990s investigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has entered a new phase, with a federal judge allowing the FBI to submit sensitive material for private judicial review.

The development concerns a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who has sought records from the FBI and other US agencies relating to an investigation into an alleged drug-trafficking and money-laundering network in the early 1990s. The case is before Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to a Washington-based lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, Judge Howell granted the FBI permission on Friday to provide the disputed material to the court privately, for what is known as an in-camera review. The firm's account also says the FBI, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Tinubu have until August 28 to make their arguments against disclosure. However, the reported order had not appeared on the public court docket at the time of the firm's announcement, so that part of the development should be treated as reported rather than independently confirmed.

An in-camera review does not mean the court has ruled that the records contain evidence of wrongdoing by Tinubu. It is a procedural mechanism that allows a judge to examine disputed documents privately and determine whether the government has a lawful basis under FOIA to withhold some or all of the material.

The FBI's request stems from its position that at least some of the records are too sensitive to explain fully in public filings. In a filing dated August 20, the bureau asked to submit declarations ex parte and under seal, arguing that publicly explaining the basis for certain redactions could itself reveal information the agency is trying to protect. The FBI has cited FOIA exemptions covering law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could endanger someone's life or physical safety.

The records sought by Greenspan include an FBI file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records from a case identified as 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU, covering the 1992–1993 period. His requests also sought records from the DEA concerning an alleged Nigerian heroin distribution organization that operated during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The case has already produced an important ruling. In April 2025, Judge Howell rejected the FBI and DEA's use of a so-called Glomar response in relation to Tinubu, a legal position under which an agency neither confirms nor denies whether responsive records exist. The court ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records after finding that the circumstances did not justify maintaining those responses.

That ruling, however, did not establish that Tinubu committed a drug-related offence. It concerned the government's handling of FOIA requests and whether the agencies could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records. The underlying allegations date back more than three decades and should not be presented as established criminal findings.

The historical matter also involves a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Chicago in which roughly $460,000 associated with Tinubu was forfeited to the US government. Tinubu has previously characterized the matter as a civil forfeiture and has not been criminally charged in the United States in connection with it. The current FOIA litigation is seeking government records surrounding the broader investigation, rather than reopening a criminal prosecution.

Tinubu was allowed to intervene in the FOIA case in 2023 because of his asserted privacy interests in records held by US law-enforcement agencies and other government bodies. The court's docket shows that he has continued to participate in the litigation.

The latest development has already generated competing interpretations. Supporters of disclosure view the private review as another step towards determining what the US government holds about the historical investigation. The FBI's position, meanwhile, is that some information must remain protected because releasing it could expose investigative methods or put individuals at risk. Neither position, by itself, establishes what the unreleased records contain.

The next stage will therefore be closely watched. Judge Howell will have to decide whether the government's claimed FOIA exemptions justify keeping the disputed information from the public, and whether any portions can instead be released. The outcome could determine how much additional material from the decades-old investigation becomes public and could keep the issue politically relevant in Nigeria as Tinubu approaches the 2027 election.

The broader significance lies in the distinction between access to records and proof of wrongdoing. A court's decision to inspect documents privately is not a finding against Tinubu, just as the government's attempt to withhold them is not proof that the allegations are false. What matters now is whether the US court can draw a legally defensible line between legitimate protection of sensitive law-enforcement information and the public's interest in records concerning a sitting foreign president. That decision could ultimately say more about government transparency and FOIA limits than about the allegations themselves.