Why US Court Should Reject Bid To Unseal My Alleged Drug Records – Tinubu

President Bola Tinubu has approached a United States District Court of Columbia to challenge the suit seeking the release of records of allegation of drug trafficking linked to him in the United States.

In his response with suit No. 23-1816 (BAH), the president, through his lawyer, Christopher W. Carmichael, argued that the release of the records could infringe on his privacy.

American transparency activist, the plaintiff in the matter, Aaron Greenspan, had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation , Drug Enforcement Administration and Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys seeking documents relating to investigations involving him.

Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records concerning the period between 1992 and 1993.

The case also involves an alleged record connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.

But Tinubu countered the allegation and urged the US agencies not to accede to the request of the plaintiff.

In his response contained in a 16-page document, his lawyer said, “Submitted in that proceeding did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving intervenor. Other than by speculation or labels, plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about intervenor. (DE 85-3, No. 16.)

“The purpose of plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent. The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are “scattered” disclosures of information from that same file. “While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed. Applying Reporter’s Committee, this court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).

“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as “distinct” from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’”)

“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff”, the document read in part.

“Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of Plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s overarching goal.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.

“If this court finds that plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with intervenor’s “name on them.”

“Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, intervenor requests that the court deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand”, Tinubu’s lawyer further argued.

He also argued in his response that the plaintiff’s motion should be denied because FOIA is not a tool for obtaining

information the government collected about private individuals.

He told the court that the privacy interests of the Intervenor (Tinubu) outweigh Plaintiff’s asserted interest in publishing information about him.

The court is expected to determine whether the records sought by the plaintiff can be released under FOIA or remain protected under the privacy-related exemptions heavily relied upon by the president.