US court gives FBI, DEA and Tinubu until August 28 to oppose release of records linked to Tinubu

Washington, D.C. — A fresh development has emerged in the long-running legal battle over the release of United States government records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, with a U.S. federal judge giving the relevant agencies and Tinubu until August 28, 2026 to formally oppose disclosure of the documents.
The development follows proceedings before U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in the District of Columbia in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case filed by American transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan.
According to an update circulated on Friday, Judge Howell granted the FBI permission to submit the disputed records to the court for private, in-camera review. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Department of Justice and President Tinubu were reportedly given until August 28 — described by the judge as the deadline and “no later” — to present their opposition to the release of the records.
The case is significant because Greenspan has sought records relating to U.S. law-enforcement investigations from the 1990s involving Tinubu and other individuals allegedly connected to a Chicago-based drug-trafficking investigation.
Court records confirm that Greenspan filed FOIA requests seeking, among other materials, FBI records concerning Tinubu and FBI interview records identified as relating to a 1992–1993 investigation. The FBI initially invoked FOIA exemptions and issued what is known as a “Glomar response,” declining to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.
However, in an April 8, 2025 ruling, Judge Howell rejected the FBI and DEA’s Glomar responses and ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to the requests. The court found that the agencies had not established a sufficient privacy interest to justify keeping secret the fact of an investigation involving Tinubu.
The latest development therefore represents another stage in determining which portions of the records, if any, can legally remain confidential.
It is important, however, to distinguish between the existence of government records and proof of criminal wrongdoing. The fact that U.S. agencies possess investigative records concerning an individual does not by itself establish that the individual committed a crime.
The claim circulating in political and social-media commentary that the FBI’s private submission automatically proves allegations of drug trafficking or that Tinubu acted as an informant has not been established by the court’s publicly available rulings.
Indeed, Judge Howell’s 2025 opinion dealt principally with whether the FBI and DEA could refuse to acknowledge the existence of responsive records under FOIA and whether non-exempt material should be processed for disclosure.
The ruling followed years of litigation initiated by Greenspan. His lawsuit, filed in June 2023, originally involved several U.S. agencies, including the FBI, DEA, IRS, Department of State and CIA. The litigation was subsequently narrowed to particular FOIA requests concerning Tinubu and another individual, Abiodun Agbele.
The case has attracted renewed political attention because of the identity of the subject and the possibility that previously withheld U.S. investigative records could eventually become public.
Tinubu’s representatives have previously disputed the significance of the records. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said after the 2025 ruling that material relating to the matter had been in the public domain for decades and maintained that the reports did not indict Tinubu.
The August 28 deadline could therefore become a major turning point in the case. If the FBI, DEA, Justice Department or Tinubu’s legal team successfully demonstrate that portions of the records are protected under applicable FOIA exemptions, those portions could remain withheld or redacted. If the court rejects the objections, additional records could be ordered released.
For now, no final judicial finding has established that President Tinubu engaged in drug trafficking, and the allegations should continue to be treated as allegations unless and until supported by admissible evidence or a definitive court finding.
The immediate question before Judge Howell is whether the government’s claimed interests in withholding the disputed material outweigh the public’s right to access records under the Freedom of Information Act.
The August 28 deadline is expected to provide the court with the government’s detailed justification for continued secrecy, after which Judge Howell will determine the next step in the disclosure process.