President Bola Tinubu has challenged an effort to obtain and release records held by United States government agencies relating to past investigations involving him, his lawyer has confirmed.

The development is part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.

Greenspan is seeking records from several US government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), relating to investigations involving Tinubu.

According to court documents filed on August 28, 2026, Tinubu, through his legal team, is asking the court to reject Greenspan’s request for wider disclosure of the records and allow the agencies to maintain redactions and withholdings.

The documents were filed by Tinubu’s lawyers, Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole O. Afolabi.

Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records covering the period between 1992 and 1993.

The case also involves records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving approximately $460,000 reportedly linked to Tinubu.

Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

In the latest filing, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the fact that some information may have previously appeared in public records does not remove their client’s privacy interest in the contents of government investigative files.

“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor,” the lawyers argued.

They said Greenspan had not identified an existing public record containing the details of a government criminal investigation or findings concerning Tinubu.

“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public,” the filing stated.

The lawyers further argued that an individual can retain a privacy interest in investigative records even where some information from those records has previously been disclosed.

“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed,” they said.

Citing previous US court decisions, Tinubu’s legal team maintained that the public disclosure of a person’s name or limited information about an investigation does not automatically make the contents of investigative files subject to disclosure.

“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” the lawyers said.

Greenspan’s FOIA case seeks access to records from multiple US government agencies. His requests include the FBI’s file on Tinubu and interview records from the early 1990s.

The dispute has also raised questions over the adequacy of the FBI’s search for responsive records, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, document-specific withholdings and the application of exemptions under US transparency laws.

Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Greenspan’s various challenges should be considered in the context of what they described as his primary objective of obtaining government records containing references to the Nigerian president.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the lawyers stated.

They argued that such a request should not allow Greenspan to obtain records that are otherwise protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions or the Privacy Act.

“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s ‘name on them,’” the filing stated.

The legal team asked the court to reject Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and uphold the FBI and DEA’s redactions and withholdings.

“For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand,” the lawyers said.

The records at the centre of the case relate to allegations that have previously linked Tinubu to drug trafficking and a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States.

However, the filing itself does not establish that Tinubu committed drug-trafficking offences. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing, while the court is being asked to determine whether the disputed government records should remain protected or be released under the FOIA.

The case remains before the US court, which will determine the extent to which the FBI and DEA must disclose the requested records.