By Adeola Kunle
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to allow it to privately explain why some records connected to allegations involving President Bola Tinubu and a drug-trafficking investigation should remain undisclosed.
In an application filed on August 20, the FBI told the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that it could not make its complete justification for withholding certain information public.
The agency is seeking permission to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration, meaning the explanation would be presented privately to the judge and kept outside the public court record.
The application was made public on Thursday by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently engaged by former Nigerian Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The FBI said the records in question are connected to Freedom of Information Act requests covering information from 1992 to 1993.
One of the requests, identified as Request Number 1588244-000, sought the complete FBI file on Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who was Nigeria's President-elect as of February 2023.
A second request, numbered 1593615-000, sought FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU for the period between 1992 and 1993.
The agency said it had relied on several exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act, including Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F), to withhold portions of the requested material.
According to the FBI, releasing the information could reveal law-enforcement investigative techniques and procedures and could potentially place an individual's life or physical safety at risk.
The agency told the court that it was unable to publicly disclose the complete justification for applying Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to some of the withheld records. It therefore asked for permission to provide the court with a sealed declaration containing the additional explanation.
If the request is approved, the FBI said it would submit the confidential declaration before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, an American businessman and founder of PlainSite.
The latest development follows a dispute over deadlines for the release of records connected with allegations involving Tinubu. The US Department of Justice had requested an additional 10 days to respond to a previous court order concerning the records.
However, Judge Beryl Howell granted the government only four extra days, setting August 21 as the new deadline.
Tinubu's legal representatives later joined the Justice Department in seeking the additional 10-day extension, but Judge Howell rejected the request.
How the FOIA case began
Between 2022 and 2023, Greenspan submitted 12 Freedom of Information Act requests to six US federal agencies. The requests sought records relating to investigations into a Chicago heroin trafficking operation that was active during the early 1990s.
Greenspan requested information concerning four people he alleged were connected to the drug operation. They were Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Adegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the agencies responded with what is known as a Glomar response, declining to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed.
Greenspan challenged the responses before the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy. However, the OIP upheld the agencies' decisions to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the records.
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the agencies' reliance on the Glomar response.
A Glomar response is a formal position used by a US government agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State were initially named as defendants. The Central Intelligence Agency was later added through an amended complaint.
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the Glomar responses issued by the FBI and DEA were improper and ordered that they be lifted.
The judge found that the two agencies had not demonstrated a sufficient privacy interest to justify concealing the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation.
Howell also determined that the FBI and DEA had failed to present adequate evidence to support their continued refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.
Adeola Kunle
No comments:
Post a Comment