The legal battle over long-sought United States records connected to allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Tinubu has taken another intriguing turn, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) asking a federal judge for permission to explain privately why some of the records should remain hidden from the public.

In a court filing dated August 20, 2026, the FBI told the US District Court for the District of Columbia that it could not fully explain its reasons for withholding certain information in an open court filing.

Instead, the agency wants to submit a confidential declaration directly to the judge, away from public view.

The FBI described the proposed filing as an ex parte, in camera declaration — a submission that would be reviewed privately by the judge and kept off the public record.

According to the agency, revealing the full details of its reasons could expose law-enforcement techniques and procedures and, in some circumstances, create risks to the lives or physical safety of individuals.

The development has added another layer of secrecy to a case that has attracted attention because of long-running efforts to obtain US government records concerning allegations linked to Tinubu and a drug-trafficking investigation dating back to the early 1990s.

The latest FBI application was made public on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently engaged by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

At the centre of the dispute are two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records connected to Tinubu.

The first request, numbered 1588244-000, sought the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu, who was identified in the request as Nigeria’s president-elect as of February 2023.

The second request, numbered 1593615-000, specifically sought FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu in connection with FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during 1992 and 1993.

The FBI said it relied on several exemptions under the US FOIA law to withhold portions of the requested material. The exemptions cited include Sections 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F).

Some of those provisions deal with personal privacy and information that could interfere with law-enforcement interests, while others cover confidential sources, investigative techniques and information whose disclosure could potentially threaten someone's safety.

The agency said it could not publicly set out the complete justification for relying on exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).

That, it argued, is why it needs permission to submit an additional declaration under seal.

If the court approves the request, the FBI said it expects to file the confidential document by August 28.

How the case started

The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, has spent years seeking US government records relating to investigations into a Chicago heroin-trafficking operation from the early 1990s.

Advertisement

Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted 12 FOIA requests to six US federal agencies. The requests sought records concerning criminal investigations involving four individuals, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

Several agencies initially responded with what is known in US legal terminology as a “Glomar response” — refusing to confirm or deny whether records concerning the individuals existed.

Greenspan challenged those responses before the US Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy, but the agency upheld the positions taken by the departments.

He eventually took the dispute to court, filing a lawsuit on June 12, 2023.

The original defendants included the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State. The Central Intelligence Agency was later added to the case.

The dispute then took a significant turn in April 2025 when US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their Glomar responses in relation to the records concerning Tinubu.

Howell found that the agencies had not demonstrated the existence of a legally recognisable privacy interest sufficient to justify keeping secret whether Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.

The judge also concluded that the agencies had not provided enough evidence to support their continued refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the records.

Another deadline, another twist

The latest FBI application comes against the backdrop of a separate request by the US Department of Justice for more time to respond to a court order concerning the release of records connected to the allegations.

The DOJ had requested an additional 10 days, but Judge Howell granted only a four-day extension, moving the deadline to August 21.

Tinubu's legal team subsequently joined the DOJ's request for additional time. The judge, however, reportedly declined the longer extension.

With that deadline looming, the FBI has now returned to court seeking permission to privately provide additional explanations for why portions of the records should remain withheld.

For now, the FBI's latest filing does not amount to a public confirmation of the allegations against Tinubu. Rather, it is a request to give the judge confidential information supporting the agency's position on withholding certain records.

The controversy therefore remains centred on a fundamental question: what exactly is contained in the withheld records, and why does the FBI believe revealing some of the information could expose investigative methods or put individuals at risk?

The answer, at least for now, may remain behind closed doors — unless the court ultimately orders the records, or more of their contents, to be made public.