The Federal Bureau of Investigation, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and US District Judge Beryl Howell are at the centre of a fresh development in a long-running Freedom of Information Act case, after the FBI asked a US federal court on August 20 to allow it to privately explain why some Tinubu records remain withheld.

The FBI told the US District Court for the District of Columbia that it could not publicly disclose the full reasons for withholding certain portions of the investigative material.

Also read: Peter Obi launches 2027 campaign with ‘Nigeria must work’ pledge

The bureau is therefore seeking permission to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration. Such a filing would be made privately to Judge Howell and kept under seal rather than placed on the public record.

According to the FBI, releasing some of the withheld information could reveal law-enforcement techniques and procedures or reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

“The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis” for applying certain exemptions, the agency said in its application.

The bureau specifically referred to FOIA exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), which cover information concerning law-enforcement techniques and information whose disclosure could endanger someone’s life or physical safety.

The FBI said that, if Judge Howell grants the request, it expects to submit the confidential declaration before August 28.

The dispute stems from FOIA requests filed by Aaron Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, seeking US government records connected with historical investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals.

One of Greenspan’s FBI requests sought the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu. Another sought FBI Form 302 interview records involving Tinubu from 1992 and 1993, connected to an FBI case identified in the court proceedings.

Greenspan filed multiple FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 with several US federal agencies.

The requests concerned investigations linked to an alleged international drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation dating back to the early 1990s.

The agencies initially relied in part on what is known as a “Glomar response”, under which an agency refuses to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.

Greenspan challenged those responses in federal court.

The case took a major turn in April 2025, when Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration could no longer rely on their Glomar responses concerning records relating to Tinubu.

The court found that government disclosures had already publicly acknowledged the FBI and DEA’s involvement in an investigation concerning Tinubu, undermining the agencies’ attempt to maintain that position through a refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.

The ruling did not establish that Tinubu committed drug trafficking or any other criminal offence.

Instead, it concerned whether the agencies had properly applied FOIA rules and whether responsive, non-exempt records should be processed for disclosure.

That distinction remains important as the case moves forward.

Although Judge Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to process responsive records, the ruling did not require every document to be released without redactions.

US FOIA law allows agencies to withhold particular categories of information where statutory exemptions apply.

The FBI’s latest application focuses on that narrower issue. The bureau maintains that it needs to explain privately why certain information falls within exemptions that protect investigative methods and individual safety.

The request comes as the case faces another important procedural deadline.

Earlier in August, the US Department of Justice sought an additional 10 days to respond to a court order concerning the records.

Judge Howell granted only four additional days, setting August 21 as the deadline. Tinubu subsequently joined the government’s request for additional time, but the judge did not grant the full extension.

Tinubu has become an intervenor in the FOIA litigation and has previously argued that records identifying him may be protected by privacy provisions under US law.

A September 2025 court filing shows that Tinubu asked the court to confirm that the agencies could withhold or redact records identifying him under FOIA’s privacy exemption and the Privacy Act.

His participation in the litigation, however, does not by itself establish that he is attempting to prevent the release of all records.

The proceedings remain a civil dispute over access to government documents.

The case has also acquired a political dimension in Nigeria.

The latest FBI application was publicised by Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm that has been working with former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar.

The renewed attention comes as Nigeria approaches the 2027 presidential election, with Tinubu seeking another term in office.

For supporters of greater disclosure, the focus is on obtaining records that may shed light on the historical investigation.

For the FBI, the immediate question is whether certain information can legally be disclosed without exposing sensitive investigative techniques or putting individuals at risk.

The FBI’s latest request does not mean the court has accepted its reasons for withholding the material.

Judge Howell must first decide whether to permit the confidential declaration.

If permission is granted, the judge will be able to review the bureau’s fuller explanation privately before determining whether the claimed exemptions are justified.

The case therefore remains unresolved.

What is established is that US authorities have acknowledged aspects of the historical investigation, while the courts are still determining which underlying records can lawfully be made public.

The latest filing adds another layer to a case that has already lasted more than three years, but it does not, on its own, prove the allegations surrounding Tinubu.