TD WASHINGTON, D.C., USA — The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court for permission to privately submit highly sensitive declarations explaining why it is withholding records concerning Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, including his full FBI file and interview records from 1992–1993.
The development is contained in a new filing submitted Thursday in Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01816 (BAH), before U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia.
The FBI’s August 20, 2026 motion asks Judge Howell to permit the agency to submit declarations ex parte and in camera—meaning privately, outside the public record and for the judge’s review alone—to support the government’s position in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.
According to the filing, one of Greenspan’s FOIA requests sought “the entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu”, while another sought FBI 302 interview reports involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during 1992–1993.
The FBI says it has invoked several FOIA exemptions, including Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F).
Of particular significance, the agency says some of the withheld information could reveal law-enforcement techniques and procedures and that disclosure “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
The FBI says it cannot publicly provide the complete explanation for its reliance on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) because doing so could compromise the very interests the exemptions are intended to protect.
The agency therefore wants Judge Howell to review additional explanations privately.
FBI seeks secret submission to judge
The motion states that the FBI expects to provide the court with the proposed declarations by August 28, 2026, subject to the court granting its request.
The filing says there will be two ex parte, in-camera declarations, with one attached as an exhibit to the other.
The FBI cites federal case law recognizing that courts may examine government declarations privately when the government’s exemption claim cannot adequately be evaluated from public affidavits and when disclosure of the additional information would compromise the secrecy being asserted.
The lawsuit was brought by Aaron Greenspan, who has sought federal records concerning Tinubu through FOIA.
Earlier filings in the case show that Greenspan specifically requested Tinubu’s FBI case file and separate FBI interview records dating to 1992–1993.
Publicly available records from the litigation also document the existence of those FOIA requests.
Safety claim does not establish what is inside the records
The FBI’s reference to potential danger to an individual’s life or physical safety is likely to attract significant attention.
However, the filing does not state that Tinubu himself is the individual whose safety could allegedly be endangered.
It also does not publicly identify the specific information that the FBI says creates the danger.
That distinction is important.
A political lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., interpreted the filing as suggesting that Tinubu’s own safety could be implicated and posted that conclusion on social media.
The firm wrote that the FBI’s invocation of the safety exemption appeared to mean that “Tinubu is afraid for his life”.
Meanwhile, it urged Nigerians to consider the development ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The document, on the other hand, says that disclosure of certain withheld information could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of “any individual”, in this case — Tinubu.
Records linked to long-running FOIA battle
The latest filing is part of a broader legal battle over U.S. government records concerning Tinubu and historical investigations involving him.
Public records from the case show that Greenspan’s 2023 FOIA request sought Tinubu’s entire FBI file, while a second request sought the FBI’s 1992–1993 interview records.
The litigation has previously involved requests for records relating to historical U.S. investigations and allegations concerning narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
Those allegations have been disputed and should not be presented as established criminal findings against Tinubu.
The latest FBI filing likewise does not accuse Tinubu of committing a crime.
Instead, it concerns the government’s legal basis for withholding information under FOIA.
Judge now holds key to disclosure
Judge Beryl Howell will ultimately decide whether the FBI may submit the additional declarations privately.
The judge will also decide how much weight to give the government’s explanations when ruling on the competing FOIA motions.
Greenspan has opposed the FBI’s request.
The filing states that the parties conferred on August 19 and that Greenspan opposed the requested relief.
If Judge Howell grants the FBI’s motion, the public may still not see the sensitive material.
Instead, the judge would review the government’s classified or otherwise protected explanation privately while determining whether the FBI has legally justified its withholding of the records.
The development therefore represents another significant turn in the continuing effort to obtain U.S. government records concerning President Tinubu.
More details could emerge when the court rules on the FBI’s request and when the agency submits its proposed declarations.
