An amicus filing before a U.S. federal court has introduced a new argument into the legal dispute over records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, questioning whether the Nigerian Presidency’s own public statements could affect his claim to privacy.
The legal battle over historical FBI and DEA records relating to President Bola Tinubu has taken another turn, with a proposed amicus curiae filing asking a United States federal court to consider statements publicly issued by the Nigerian Presidency about the records at the centre of the dispute.
The filing was formally received by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on September 4, 2026, according to the firm behind the proposed submission. It seeks permission to participate in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al. as an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.”
At the heart of the intervention is a legal argument over whether President Tinubu can assert privacy protections over investigative records while the Nigerian Presidency publicly discusses the same records and characterises the underlying dispute.
The filing does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing by President Tinubu. The case before the Washington, D.C. court is a civil dispute concerning access to government records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The Nigerian Presidency has repeatedly stressed that distinction.
What is the Tinubu FBI and DEA records case about?
The dispute dates back to 2022, when American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
The requests eventually led to Civil Action No. 23-1816, filed in June 2023 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the FOIA Project’s case record, Greenspan sought records concerning Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele connected to a federal investigation into an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering network dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tinubu later became an intervenor in the case.
The case initially involved several U.S. agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, Department of State, Treasury and IRS.
Some agencies invoked what is known as the Glomar response, under which an agency declines to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
That position became an important part of the early litigation.
A federal judge ordered further processing of FBI and DEA records
In April 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their blanket Glomar responses in the manner previously used and directed them to search for and process potentially responsive, non-exempt records.
The development did not mean that every requested document had to be released.
Instead, it moved the dispute into a different phase: determining which records, or portions of records, could legally be withheld under exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act.
The Nigerian Presidency says the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under various FOIA exemptions. The Presidency says the remaining dispute concerns whether those redactions and withholdings are legally justified.
Why President Tinubu’s privacy claim matters
One of the exemptions being relied upon concerns personal privacy.
President Tinubu, through his lawyers, has asserted rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which can protect personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The legal significance is that the court is being asked to balance privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure.
Tinubu’s legal team has argued that information identifying him in the records should remain protected. Recent reporting on the case says his lawyers have asked the court to reject further disclosure of records relating to historical U.S. investigations involving him.
The proposed amicus filing seeks to introduce another consideration into that analysis.
The “you cannot have it both ways” argument
The central argument advanced by the proposed amicus filing is straightforward.
The filers contend that the Nigerian Presidency’s public discussion of the records could be relevant to the privacy question now before the court.
Their position is that if the Presidency has itself publicly characterised information concerning the FBI and DEA records, it should not simultaneously rely on privacy interests to prevent the U.S. public from accessing those same government records.
In other words, the filing asks the court to consider whether the Presidency’s own public statements have potentially reduced the weight that should be given to Tinubu’s asserted privacy interests.
That is an argument being advanced by the proposed amicus, not a ruling by the court.
The court must still decide whether the proposed filing will be accepted and, if accepted, how much weight to give its arguments.
What did the Nigerian Presidency say?
The Presidency has strongly pushed back against descriptions of the matter as a criminal case against Tinubu.
In a September 3 clarification issued by Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described the proceedings as a civil records-disclosure dispute under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
It said the case is not a criminal prosecution and emphasised that no U.S. court has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
The Presidency also provided historical context, including reference to a 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos concerning an FBI records check that, according to the statement, found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu at that time.
The statement further explained the legal basis for several categories of redactions, including grand-jury information, attorney-client material, law-enforcement information, confidential sources and information whose disclosure could implicate personal privacy.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not itself establish criminal liability.
Why the Presidency’s statement has become significant
It is the public nature of that clarification that has now become a central part of the proposed amicus argument.
The filing’s proponents argue that the Presidency has chosen to publicly discuss the nature of the records and the circumstances surrounding them.
They therefore want the federal court to consider those public statements when assessing whether President Tinubu’s privacy interests justify continued withholding or redaction.
The argument raises an unusual legal question: can a public statement by a foreign government affect the privacy interests asserted by an individual before a U.S. federal court?
The answer will ultimately depend on the court’s interpretation of the applicable FOIA exemptions and the specific facts and arguments presented by the parties.
What is an amicus curiae filing?
An amicus curiae is commonly described as a “friend of the court.”
An amicus is generally not one of the principal parties to a lawsuit. Instead, an outside individual or organisation seeks permission to provide information, legal arguments or another perspective that may assist the court in deciding an issue.
In this case, the proposed filing seeks permission to present an additional perspective concerning Tinubu’s privacy interests and the Nigerian Presidency’s public statements.
Importantly, submitting a proposed amicus filing does not mean the court has accepted it.
The court must first decide whether the proposed participant will be allowed to formally intervene in that capacity.
The Presidency says the court will decide the case
The Nigerian government has also questioned the prominence given to outside political commentary surrounding the litigation.
Its September 3 statement said the case is under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell and that the outcome will be determined by the evidence, applicable U.S. law and arguments filed by the parties.
The Presidency also stressed that individuals who are commenting publicly on the dispute are not necessarily parties to the underlying lawsuit.
That distinction is important because the growing public debate surrounding the records extends beyond the formal legal questions before the court.
What happens next in the Tinubu FOIA case?
The litigation is now moving toward another round of filings.
According to the Nigerian Presidency, Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply materials, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond.
The proposed amicus filing adds another potential layer to those proceedings if the court grants permission for it to be docketed and considered.
The central questions remain whether the FBI and DEA have properly applied the relevant FOIA exemptions, whether the remaining redactions are lawful and how the court should balance privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure.
A records dispute with wider political implications
Although the case is legally about access to government records, its political significance is difficult to ignore.
President Tinubu is Nigeria’s sitting president, and the records at issue relate to events that predate his presidency by decades.
The dispute has also attracted attention because it involves U.S. federal law-enforcement agencies, historical allegations concerning drug investigations and questions about what government records should be available to the public.
At the same time, the legal proceedings demonstrate why allegations surrounding historical records must be distinguished from judicial findings.
The existence of an FBI or DEA record, the fact that an investigation took place, or the withholding of a document under FOIA does not, on its own, establish that a person committed a crime.
That distinction is particularly important in the Tinubu FBI records case, where the legal dispute is ultimately about what U.S. law permits government agencies to disclose.
The question now before the court
The latest development has shifted attention from simply asking what is contained in the FBI and DEA records to another question: how should the court assess privacy claims when information about those records has already been publicly discussed by the Nigerian Presidency?
The proposed amicus filing wants Judge Howell to consider that question.
Whether the court accepts the filing, considers its arguments and ultimately finds them relevant remains to be seen.
For now, the legal battle continues.
And as the September filing deadlines approach, the Tinubu privacy case is likely to remain under close scrutiny in Nigeria, the United States and beyond.
