TD A fresh development has emerged in the long-running U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation over records sought from American law-enforcement agencies concerning Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
According to an update published by Washington-based policy and lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has authorised the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to submit certain documents to the court privately for judicial review.
He also gave the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ) and President Tinubu until August 28, 2026, “and no later,” to file their opposition to disclosure.
The development represents a significant new stage in the FOIA case, which has been pending for more than three years.
Earlier proceedings had already seen Judge Howell order the agencies to process potentially responsive, non-exempt records.
FBI Allowed to Submit Documents Privately
Von Batten-Montague-York said Judge Howell has now permitted the FBI to provide the disputed documents to the court in camera—meaning privately and without public disclosure.
The judge would then determine whether the material is legally protected from release.
The firm stressed the judge’s words, “and no later,” arguing that the court is signalling that it expects the agencies to justify any continued withholding.
The procedure does not mean that the court has determined that the documents contain evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.
Rather, the judge will have to determine whether the records, or portions of them, qualify for withholding under applicable FOIA exemptions.
What the New Deadline Means
The August 28 deadline is particularly significant because the parties will now have to present their legal arguments against disclosure within a fixed timetable.
The FBI, DEA and DOJ are expected to explain why the requested records should not be released, while Tinubu has also been given the opportunity to oppose disclosure.
Tinubu recently joined the U.S. government’s request for additional time in the case.
Judge Howell had previously declined to grant the full extension sought by the government and set an earlier deadline for the parties to respond.
The latest order therefore appears to move the dispute from questions about delay toward the more substantive question of what information the agencies can legally continue to withhold.
Lobbying Firm Claims FBI Has “Highly Sensitive” Information
Von Batten-Montague-York interpreted the FBI’s request for private judicial review as evidence that the bureau possesses highly sensitive information relating to Tinubu.
The firm went further, alleging that such sensitivity could involve information concerning confidential sources or informants.
Those assertions, however, are the firm’s interpretation and have not been established by the court as fact.
The FOIA process routinely allows agencies to submit sensitive material to judges for private review when determining whether exemptions apply.
The fact that information is submitted in camera does not by itself establish that it concerns criminal informants, drug-trafficking activity or any particular allegation.
Dispute Over Tinubu’s Historical U.S. Case
The FOIA litigation stems from efforts by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to obtain records from the FBI, DEA and other U.S. agencies concerning historical investigations involving Tinubu.
The controversy is linked to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds associated with Tinubu.
Nigerian courts have previously considered arguments surrounding the U.S. proceedings, including during litigation connected with the 2023 presidential election.
The U.S. forfeiture matter itself was civil in nature and did not result in a criminal conviction of Tinubu for drug trafficking.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
Political Dimension Intensifies
The disclosure battle has acquired a significant political dimension ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election.
Von Batten-Montague-York is associated with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and has publicly campaigned for the release of the records.
The firm has also disclosed that it has provided historical DOJ materials concerning the case to officials in the Trump administration, members of Congress and congressional staff.
The firm’s latest statement contrasts the current Trump administration’s handling of the matter with that of the previous Biden administration, accusing the latter of delaying or resisting disclosure.
Those are political characterisations by the firm, rather than findings by Judge Howell.
ExxonMobil Connection Also Raised
In its statement, Von Batten-Montague-York also highlighted Tinubu’s historical employment at Mobil Oil Nigeria and the subsequent corporate relationship between Mobil and ExxonMobil.
The firm separately referenced several policies under Tinubu that it says have benefited ExxonMobil.
These include the removal of fuel subsidies, approval of ExxonMobil’s proposed asset divestment to Seplat, deepwater investment incentives and increased production commitments.
However, the firm expressly stated that these references do not allege that ExxonMobil participated in, knew about, or was connected to any alleged criminal activity, nor do they allege a quid pro quo between ExxonMobil and the Nigerian government.
Awaiting August 28
The immediate focus is now on August 28, 2026.
By that date, the FBI, DEA, DOJ and Tinubu are expected to present their opposition to the release of the disputed records.
Meanwhile, the FBI will have submitted the relevant documents privately for Judge Howell’s review.
The judge will ultimately determine whether the records—or portions of them—must be released under FOIA or can lawfully remain withheld.
For now, the latest development does not establish the truth of the underlying drug-trafficking allegations.
It does, however, mark another important step in a legal battle over what U.S. law-enforcement agencies know, what they are permitted to withhold and what information concerning the historical Tinubu case may eventually become public.
