The battle over United States law-enforcement records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is entering a new phase just as Nigeria’s 2027 presidential campaign gets under way, with a federal judge in Washington giving the US government and the president until August 28 to make further filings in the long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.
The deadline comes as Tinubu prepares to seek a second term under the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Independent National Electoral Commission has fixed the presidential election for January 16, 2027, while the formal campaign period began this week.
Tinubu has already secured the APC presidential nomination and will contest the election with Vice President Kashim Shettima. The party submitted their names for the presidential ticket in July, while the opposition African Democratic Congress is fielding former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, with former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi as his running mate.
Against that political backdrop, the US litigation over records relating to Tinubu’s past has become one of the issues surrounding scrutiny of the incumbent’s record and background.
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., was filed in 2023 by Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking records from US agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals.
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia has presided over the case.
The latest development followed an FBI request to submit confidential material to the judge explaining why portions of records should remain withheld. The bureau is seeking to make the submission ex parte and in camera, meaning that the material would be provided privately to the judge rather than placed on the public court docket.
Reports on the filing said the FBI maintains that disclosure of some information could expose law-enforcement techniques or reasonably be expected to endanger an individual’s life or physical safety. The bureau has invoked several FOIA exemptions, including provisions covering personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative techniques and threats to physical safety.
The judge’s permission for private review does not amount to a finding that the records contain evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu. The court is being asked to determine whether the government’s reasons for withholding particular information satisfy the requirements of US freedom-of-information law.
A case now unfolding during an election campaign
The timing gives the litigation additional political significance.
The electoral process for the 2027 general election is already under way, and the presidential contest is taking shape around Tinubu’s bid for a second term. INEC has published the timetable for the election, with the presidential and National Assembly polls scheduled for January 16, 2027.
The opposition is meanwhile attempting to make the election a contest over the record of the Tinubu administration. Atiku is running on the ADC ticket, while Peter Obi and other opposition figures are also participating in a crowded presidential field. INEC has published the particulars of 19 presidential candidates and their running mates.
The US records dispute is separate from the electoral process and does not, by itself, determine whether Tinubu is qualified to contest the presidency.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests concern records from investigations dating to the early 1990s.
One request sought the entire FBI file concerning Tinubu, while another sought FBI Form 302 interview records associated with a 1992-93 investigation. Form 302 records are used by FBI agents to document information obtained during interviews.
The underlying litigation concerns records that Greenspan says were generated during a federal investigation of an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation. Judge Howell’s 2025 memorandum opinion described Greenspan’s claims as relating to a federal investigation in the early 1990s involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.
The FBI initially used a so-called Glomar response, declining to confirm or deny whether it possessed responsive records. Greenspan challenged that position in court.
In April 2025, Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA had not established a sufficient basis to continue refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning Tinubu. She ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to the requests.
The ruling did not order the agencies to release every document in their possession. Records protected by FOIA exemptions could still be withheld or redacted.
The dispute has now moved beyond the question of whether the agencies must acknowledge records and into a contest over which portions of those records can legally remain secret.
The FBI’s latest filing says some of the reasons for withholding information cannot be fully explained in a public submission. It has therefore asked to provide the additional explanation privately to the judge.
The bureau has cited FOIA provisions dealing with law-enforcement information. Among them, Exemption 7(E) covers information concerning law-enforcement techniques and procedures where disclosure could risk circumvention of the law, while Exemption 7(F) covers information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.
An in-camera review is a judicial procedure that allows a judge to inspect disputed evidence privately. The procedure itself does not establish what the material contains.
The contents of the proposed confidential filing have not been made public.
Tinubu joined government’s request for more time
The latest deadline also follows a dispute over the pace of the proceedings.
Earlier this month, Tinubu joined the US government’s request for an additional 10 days to respond to the court’s orders concerning the records. Judge Howell declined to grant the full extension and set August 21 as the deadline for the relevant response.
The subsequent FBI filing has now placed August 28 at the centre of the next stage of the litigation.
The deadline does not mean that the records will automatically become public on that date. Rather, the parties are expected to make their legal arguments concerning disclosure, while the FBI may provide the judge with confidential material supporting its position.
The judge will ultimately determine whether the agencies have properly invoked the exemptions they rely upon.
The 1993 forfeiture controversy
The FOIA dispute is connected in public discussion to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving money associated with Tinubu.
That proceeding was civil rather than a criminal conviction for drug trafficking. The existence of a civil forfeiture proceeding or an investigation does not itself establish criminal liability.
The US FOIA litigation likewise does not constitute a criminal prosecution against the Nigerian president. It is a civil lawsuit brought under the Freedom of Information Act to determine whether government records should be disclosed.
Judge Howell’s 2025 ruling was similarly procedural and concerned the agencies’ handling of the FOIA requests. It did not find Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking or any other criminal offence. JJustia Law
Records and the 2027 contest
The political significance of the case stems from the fact that the records sought concern the background of a sitting president who is now seeking another four-year mandate.
The litigation has also attracted the attention of Washington-based policy and lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, which has publicly campaigned for disclosure of the records. The firm has been associated with Atiku and has publicised developments in the case.
The firm’s statements and political interpretations are separate from the findings and orders of the US court.
The legal question before Judge Howell remains whether the FBI, DEA and other agencies have complied with FOIA and whether particular records or portions of records fall within statutory exemptions.
For Tinubu, however, the timing means that the court proceedings will unfold alongside the opening stages of the 2027 presidential campaign.
The next significant date is August 28, when the US government and Tinubu are expected to make their further filings and the FBI’s request for confidential judicial review is expected to advance.
Whether any additional records are subsequently ordered released, and what those records contain, will depend on Judge Howell’s further rulings.
For now, the US case has produced no criminal judgment against Tinubu and no ruling affecting his eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election. The immediate issue remains access to government records generated by US law-enforcement agencies more than three decades ago.