“Releasing Records Could Put Lives at Risk” – FBI Seeks Private Court Review of Withheld Tinubu Files

• The FBI has asked a US federal court to allow it to privately explain why some records requested in a Freedom of Information Act case involving President Bola Tinubu should remain withheld.
• The agency cited concerns about exposing law-enforcement techniques and potentially putting lives at risk.
• The request does not establish the truth of the drug-trafficking allegations involving Tinubu, but the development has renewed public debate over the long-running records case.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a federal court in Washington, DC, for permission to privately explain why it withheld some records connected to longstanding allegations involving President Bola Tinubu and a 1990s drug-trafficking investigation.

The request was contained in an application filed on August 20, 2026, in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by Aaron Greenspan, founder of PlainSite.

The FBI wants to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration, meaning its explanation would be presented privately to the judge rather than placed on the public court record. The agency said it could not publicly disclose the full basis for withholding some of the requested information.

According to the filing, the FBI cited FOIA exemptions covering law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of individuals. The records sought include Tinubu’s FBI file and FBI Form 302 interview records from the 1990s.

Greenspan had filed multiple FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 seeking records related to a Chicago heroin investigation from the early 1990s involving Tinubu and three other individuals. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration had initially used a “Glomar” response, declining to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed.

In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the agencies had not provided sufficient grounds for continuing to use the Glomar response and ordered them to lift it. The ruling did not establish that Tinubu was guilty of drug trafficking; it concerned whether the agencies could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records.

The FBI’s latest filing is therefore a request to justify privately why parts of the records should remain withheld. It does not, by itself, establish that the allegations against Tinubu are true or that the documents contain evidence of criminal conduct.

The agency said that, should the court grant permission, it would submit the confidential explanation by August 28.

The development has generated debate online, with some Nigerians interpreting the FBI’s request as evidence of the allegations, while others questioned why records allegedly involving events from the 1990s remain restricted.

Obyno William: “That means all the allegations are true , FBI don collect their own rice”

Man Of Vawulence: “Abeg Wetin be difference between KC Luxury and Jagaban.

One must not be in NDLEA custody make the other dey Aso Rock”

Luke Eneji: “USA just dey joke around, they don’t have evidence.”

Rels Ben: “When money or bribe is talking you would know”

Pa Pa Razy: “Abeg which lives e won put on risk?”

Kings Eze: “The alleged lobbyists are either working perfectly or oil barrels are making serious movements”

Otunba Munir Ikechukwu: “Behind every delayed case in US, there will be a strong lobby firm”

ThankGod Sabo: “Just playing mind games,if the record can’t be in the public anymore then I think the issue should be out of public thanks.”

Thomas Jnr: “Tell them to release hushpuppi”

Musa Suleiman Onota: “What exactly does FBI mean? Can someone please break it down for better understanding?”

Emy Rnd: “Is either the took bribe or the have no evidence”

Horace Horace: “Which or Whose lives is at risk?”

Teeborne Da-Baqbone: “After releasing it are they going to arrest him?”