Greenspan -Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu has approached a U.S. court, requesting that it enforce its earlier ruling allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to withhold certain documents deemed personal to him.
This move comes in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by American activist Aaron Greenspan, who sought the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu and DEA records.
Bola Tinubu’s legal team, led by Wole Afolabi, argued that Greenspan’s requests were aimed at exposing private details rather than examining government conduct.
They emphasized that the exemptions under the U.S. Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 7(C) protect law enforcement records from disclosure when such release would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
According to Tinubu’s attorneys, Greenspan’s requests do not align with the FOIA’s purpose of illuminating government activities but were instead meant to fuel political disputes in Nigeria.
In their motion filed on September 4, 2025, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Tinubu’s lawyers stated, “in conferring prior to filing this motion, Plaintiff asserted that the Court already resolved the issue of whether exempt records must be produced – despite not having heard from intervenor.”
They added that the Court appears to have chosen this language because the agencies still assert exemptions to the production of records.
Tinubu’s legal team countered that his right to privacy remains intact even as a public figure, citing U.S. precedents that affirm government officials do not forfeit all personal privacy rights by virtue of their position.
They further argued that Greenspan’s quest for decades-old files from the early 1990s lacked genuine public interest and only served the activist’s website (link unavailable), which thrives on publishing documents to attract traffic.
In response to Bola Tinubu’s motion, Greenspan urged the court to dismiss the plea, insisting that Tinubu was using his office to go after opposition figures and critics of his administration.
However, Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the Nigerian public’s interest in an individual is not a basis for a FOIA request, stressing that Tinubu was not a public official at the time of the alleged events.
“The Nigerian public’s interest in an individual is not a basis for a FOIA request,” the filing added.
This argument highlights the complexities surrounding the balance between public interest and individual privacy rights, particularly when it involves high-profile figures like Tinubu.
The outcome of this case has significant implications for the interpretation of FOIA exemptions and the protection of personal privacy rights.
If the court rules in favour of Bola Tinubu, it could set a precedent for how government officials’ personal records are handled under FOIA requests.
Conversely, if Greenspan’s requests are granted, it could lead to increased scrutiny of public figures’ past actions and potentially impact their ability to maintain privacy.
In January 1992, Tinubu became the subject of a US federal investigation into heroin trafficking and money laundering in Illinois, Chicago.
The investigation linked over $2 million in several of Tinubu’s bank accounts to proceeds from heroin trafficking by Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele, Chicago drug kingpins.
In 1993, Bola Tinubu forfeited $460,000 to the US government after a Chicago court found that the funds were proceeds from illicit activities.
The court ordered the forfeiture of the funds in Tinubu’s accounts with Heritage Bank and Citibank. Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the forfeiture was part of a settlement agreement and not a criminal conviction.
Certified copies of the court case, obtained on August 10, 2022, revealed that Tinubu and two others, K.O. Tinubu and Alhaji Mogati, were involved in banking proceeds of illicit drugs and money laundering.
The documents also showed that the US government had sought forfeiture of proceeds of narcotics Tinubu was accused of laundering.
Tinubu’s spokespersons have admitted to the forfeiture but emphasized that it was not a conviction.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has also maintained that Tinubu was not convicted of any crime, citing a letter from the US Consulate in Lagos that cleared Tinubu of any criminal record.
PRNigeria, a fact-checking organization, investigated the claims and verified the existence of the court documents.
They also contacted Johnny Khuu, a signatory on the court’s document, who confirmed the authenticity of the documents.
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s past has sparked intense debate and scrutiny, with some questioning his eligibility to hold public office. However, Tinubu’s supporters argue that the case was settled decades ago and should not be used to discredit him.
In June 2023, President Bola Tinubu signed the Nigeria Data Protection Act into law, marking a significant milestone in the country’s journey towards developing a primary legislative framework for the protection of personal information.
This move demonstrates Tinubu’s commitment to protecting citizens’ data and upholding their right to privacy.
The court’s decision on Tinubu’s motion will have far-reaching implications for the balance between public interest and individual privacy rights.
As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the court will weigh the competing interests and interpret the exemptions under FOIA and the U.S. Privacy Act.
One thing is certain, however: the outcome will have significant consequences for Bola Tinubu’s personal records and the broader landscape of FOIA requests involving public figures.