admin
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has filed a motion seeking to submit ex parte in camera declarations on why it withheld information about its investigative records relating to allegations of drug trafficking against President Bola Tinubu.
An ex parte in camera declaration is a written statement submitted solely to a judge by a party in a legal case.
According to TheCable, an application dated August 20, the FBI told the US district court in Columbia that it cannot publicly explain all the reasons it is withholding certain records, hence the need for an ex parte in camera declaration.
A copy of the application was published on X by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by Atiku Abubakar, the former vice-president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) for the 2027 elections.
The FBI said it has invoked various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions against the requests for Tinubu’s records from 1992 to 1993.
The US law enforcement agency said if it acceded to the requests, it “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual”.
Part of the FBI’s application reads: “One of the requests at issue is the request assigned Request Number 1588244-000, which sought “[t]he entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of February 2023”.
“Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the FBI seeking “FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993”.
“This was assigned Request Number 1593615-000. The FBI has invoked various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions, including 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) regarding these requests, and determined the information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed, would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
“The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
The FBI said if the court grants the permission to submit an ex parte in camera declaration, it would explain reasons for withholding certain information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, the American founder of PlainSite.
Recently, the US Department of Justice requested an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release of records related to allegations of drug trafficking against Tinubu.
However, Beryl Howell, the judge, granted only four additional days, until August 21.
Subsequently, Tinubu, through his legal team, joined the US DOJ’s request seeking an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order.
Howell was said to have declined Tinubu’s request.
THE CASE
In 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 FOIA requests with six different US federal agencies seeking information from criminal investigations into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
Greenspan sought investigative records about four named individuals allegedly associated with the drug ring, including Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the US agencies responded, saying that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan approached the US DOJ’s office of information policy (OIP).
The OIP affirmed the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, according to the court documents.
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the agencies’ Glomar response to his FOIA requests. A Glomar response is an official statement by a US government agency refusing to confirm or deny whether requested records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), and Department of State were initially named as defendants.
However, the CIA was later named as a defendant in the first amended complaint.
In April 2025, Judge Howell held that the responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted”.
The judge ruled that the FBI and DEA failed to provide information to “establish cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation”.
Howell held that the two agencies failed to provide evidence demonstrating the burden of sustaining their Glomar responses
