A United States federal judge has rejected substantial parts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s attempts to justify withholding records connected to a decades-old investigation into an alleged Chicago-based heroin-trafficking and money-laundering operation in which Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his alleged associate, Abiodun Agbele, were named.
In a memorandum opinion delivered on October 30, 2026, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied most of the federal agencies’ cross-motion for summary judgment, ruling that their explanations for withholding significant portions of the requested records were insufficient.
The decision also requires the agencies to provide additional, detailed justifications if they intend to continue withholding the disputed material.
The ruling arose from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, who sought historical investigative records from the FBI and DEA concerning a Chicago-based money-laundering and heroin-distribution investigation conducted in the early 1990s.
Tinubu intervened in the litigation as a defendant.
Summary of the Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al Court Order Dated October 30, 2026
1. Decisions on the main applications
-
Greenspan’s application for summary judgment was denied.
ADVERTISEMENT -
The FBI and DEA’s joint application for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
-
The court ruled in favour of the FBI on:
-
The adequacy of its search for responsive records.
-
Its withholding of information under FOIA Exemption 5.
-
2. FBI and DEA withholding decisions challenged
– The court rejected, without prejudice, the agencies’ applications for summary judgment concerning their reliance on:
-
Exemption 3: Information protected by other federal statutes.
-
Exemption 6: Personal privacy.
-
Exemption 7(C): Privacy protection in law-enforcement records.
-
Exemption 7(D): Confidential sources.
-
Exemption 7(E): Law-enforcement techniques and procedures.
-
Exemption 7(F): Protection of individuals from harm.
FBI Director Kash Patel -
This means the agencies had not sufficiently justified these withholdings to obtain summary judgment at this stage.
ADVERTISEMENT -
It does not mean all the withheld documents must automatically be released.
3. Further action required by November 27, 2026
-
The parties must consult one another and jointly submit a proposed timetable for any renewed applications for summary judgment.
-
The FBI and DEA must provide supplementary declarations if they continue withholding records under the disputed exemptions.
-
Those declarations must give sufficiently detailed explanations to enable the judge to evaluate:
-
The specific reasons for each exemption.
-
Whether the agencies have demonstrated foreseeable harm, where required.
-
Whether information that can legally be disclosed has been separated from information that can remain confidential.
-
Whether information already in the public domain is still being withheld.
-
– The agencies may submit both public and confidential versions of their supplementary declarations if necessary to protect legitimately classified or sensitive information.
4. Other applications rejected
The judge also ruled:
-
Denied: Greenspan’s request for procedural safeguards governing the FBI’s confidential submissions to the court.
-
Denied: Karl Von Batten’s application to submit an amicus curiae brief.
-
Denied: Greenspan’s request to serve limited discovery on President Bola Tinubu and DCI Group.
-
Denied: Greenspan’s application asking the court to take judicial notice of certain records.
5. What the order means
-
The FBI and DEA have not secured a complete victory in their effort to withhold the requested records.
-
The court has not accepted their explanations for withholding information under six of the disputed FOIA exemptions.
-
The agencies must provide further legal and factual justification if they wish to continue withholding the material.
-
The dispute over access to the records therefore remains ongoing.
-
The order does not direct the immediate release of all the requested documents.
-
It does not establish that Tinubu committed heroin trafficking or any other criminal offence.
-
It does not establish that the FBI or DEA possess an authenticated wiretap recording of Tinubu.
The FBI and DEA won on the adequacy of the FBI’s search and FOIA Exemption 5.
They lost their bid for summary judgment on the other six exemptions, without prejudice.
The November 27 deadline concerns a proposed schedule and supporting declarations—not an automatic deadline for releasing all the records.
This is the precise meaning of the three-page order.
The accompanying 78-page memorandum opinion provides the judge’s detailed reasoning.
Court questions agencies’ blanket secrecy claims
The court examined the agencies’ reliance on several FOIA exemptions to withhold or redact information in hundreds of pages of investigative records.
Judge Howell found that the FBI and DEA had not adequately explained why information already disclosed in public court documents could continue to be withheld in the records sought by Greenspan.
The judge particularly questioned the agencies’ failure to address a 1993 affidavit by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss, which was attached to a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice.
That affidavit, which is part of the public court record, named Tinubu and Agbele and described allegations linking them to financial transactions investigated as part of the wider heroin-trafficking operation.
According to the court’s review of the affidavit, the document described the government’s allegations that funds in bank accounts controlled by Tinubu were connected to transactions involving alleged drug-trafficking proceeds.
It also stated that Agbele had sold heroin on several occasions, subsequently became a co-operating source in the investigation, and was linked to the wider distribution network.
The affidavit further described allegations concerning Tinubu’s relationship with the organisation and financial transactions involving his bank accounts.
These are allegations contained in historical investigative and court documents, not findings of criminal guilt against Tinubu.
FBI and DEA criticised over public information already on record
One of the central issues in the judgment was the agencies’ failure to properly distinguish between information that had already entered the public domain and details that had not previously been disclosed.
Judge Howell noted that the FBI had released a redacted version of the Moss affidavit, removing Tinubu’s name and other details, even though an unredacted version had already been filed in public court records in 1993 and again in the present litigation.
The judge described the withholding as an example of the questionable redactions in the case.
The court also observed that none of the records released by either the FBI or DEA to Greenspan contained Tinubu’s name.
It ruled that the agencies could not rely on broad privacy exemptions to categorically withhold information about individuals whose identities and connections to the investigation had already been officially acknowledged in public records.
The agencies were directed to provide more particularised explanations, distinguishing between information already made public and material containing genuinely new details that might lawfully remain protected.
Judge rejects DEA’s explanations on wiretap and pen-register records
The judgment also examined the DEA’s reliance on provisions of federal law protecting information obtained through wiretaps and pen-register surveillance.
The court found that the DEA had failed to adequately justify certain withholdings under the Pen Register Act and the federal wiretap statute, particularly where its explanations were too general to establish why the relevant material qualified for protection.
The judge also found that the agencies had not sufficiently demonstrated that publicly disclosed information could not be separated from genuinely exempt material.
The ruling does not mean that all wiretap or surveillance records must be released.
The court recognised that sensitive investigative methods and information capable of compromising law-enforcement operations may legitimately remain protected.
However, the agencies must provide more specific explanations and demonstrate that information already in the public domain has been properly considered.
The judgment also refers to documents submitted by Greenspan that he described as FBI FD-302 transcriptions of intercepted telephone conversations from 1990.
The court noted that, to the extent those documents were publicly filed and accessible, they would be subject to the public-domain principle.
The court did not authenticate those transcriptions or establish that they contain Tinubu’s voice. Nor did it announce that any recording of the Nigerian President would be released.
Court says Tinubu’s public position affects privacy considerations
Another important aspect of the judgment concerned Tinubu’s argument that he should retain full privacy protections because he was not Nigeria’s President when the investigation took place in the early 1990s.
Judge Howell rejected that particular argument.
The court noted that Tinubu was a candidate for, and subsequently a member of, the Nigerian Senate during the relevant period. He was therefore a public official at the time covered by the records.
The judge held that the agencies must take his public-official status into account when assessing the privacy exemptions they seek to invoke.
However, the court also made clear that public officials do not automatically lose all rights to personal privacy. Information that has not previously entered the public domain may still qualify for protection under the law.
Agencies must provide further explanations
The court concluded that the FBI and DEA had not established their entitlement to summary judgment on most of the disputed withholding claims.
Among other things, the agencies must provide additional explanations addressing:
- Whether withheld records contain information already disclosed in the 1993 Moss affidavit or other public court documents.
- Whether information already in the public domain can reasonably be separated from protected material.
- Whether the privacy interests of individuals named in the records justify continued withholding.
- Whether the agencies can demonstrate specific and reasonably foreseeable harm from disclosure.
- Whether their reliance on exemptions covering confidential sources, surveillance techniques and the safety of individuals is sufficiently justified.
The judge directed the agencies to prepare supplemental declarations supporting any continued withholding and, after consulting Greenspan, propose an expedited briefing schedule for any renewed application for summary judgment.
Importantly, the October 30 judgment did not set November 27 as a specific court-ordered disclosure deadline. The ruling directed the agencies to act promptly and provide further supporting declarations.
Separate discovery request against Tinubu rejected
The judgment also addressed another application by Greenspan seeking permission to obtain limited discovery from Tinubu and political consulting firm DCI Group over alleged distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against his website.
Greenspan wanted to investigate the source of the alleged cyberattacks, but the judge ruled that the proposed discovery was not sufficiently relevant to the underlying FOIA dispute.
The court stressed that identifying the source of the alleged attacks would not help determine whether the FBI and DEA had conducted adequate searches or lawfully withheld the requested records.
It therefore denied the discovery application.
The court also rejected a motion by non-party Karl Von Batten to file an amicus curiae brief and denied Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice.
Presidency’s account and Von Batten’s response
Following the ruling, Nigerian presidential spokesman Sunday Dare highlighted the court’s rejection of Greenspan’s attempt to obtain discovery from Tinubu and DCI Group.
The Presidency’s account focused on the procedural decision concerning the alleged cyberattacks, describing it as a significant development in the FOIA litigation.
However, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., represented on social media by Karl Von Batten, argued that the presidential account did not adequately explain the other aspects of the judgment.
Von Batten maintained that the court had rejected most of the FBI and DEA’s justifications for withholding the historical investigative records and had directed the agencies to provide more detailed explanations.
He described the ruling as a major development in the effort to obtain public access to the documents.
The court record confirms that both aspects of the October 30 decision occurred: Greenspan’s discovery request against Tinubu was denied, while most of the agencies’ cross-motion concerning the disputed FOIA withholdings was also denied.
What the ruling means — and what it does not mean
The October 30 decision keeps the dispute over the historical FBI and DEA records alive.
It represents a significant setback for the agencies’ attempt to obtain summary judgment on most of their withholding justifications. It also reinforces the principle that information already officially disclosed in public court records cannot simply be concealed again through broad, inadequately explained FOIA exemptions.
Nevertheless, the judgment is not a criminal conviction, a finding that Tinubu participated in heroin trafficking, or an order compelling the immediate publication of every requested FBI and DEA file.
The underlying allegations remain allegations, and the agencies retain the opportunity to justify withholding information that meets the requirements of the law.
The next stage will depend on the supplemental declarations and further proceedings ordered by the court.
For Nigerians following the controversy, the central issue remains whether the public will eventually gain access to more of the historical investigative records and what those documents will establish.
The full court ruling is available for public examination.
