The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked a US court to allow it to submit ex parte, in-camera declarations explaining why it withheld some investigative records concerning Tinubu drug Probe.
An ex parte, in-camera declaration is a written statement that an agency submits privately to a judge rather than making it publicly available.
In an application dated August 20, the FBI told the US District Court in Columbia that it needed to provide the declaration because it could not publicly disclose all the reasons behind its decision to withhold certain information.
Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently retained by Atiku Abubakar—the former vice president and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate for the 2027 elections—shared a copy of the application on X.
In response to requests seeking Tinubu’s records spanning 1992 to 1993, the FBI cited several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions for withholding the documents.
The US law enforcement agency said if it acceded to the requests, it “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual”.
The FBI said it would explain why it withheld certain information by August 28, provided the court allows it to submit an ex parte, in-camera declaration.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, the American founder of PlainSite.
The US Department of Justice recently asked the court for an additional 10 days to produce records related to allegations of drug trafficking involving Tinubu. However, Judge Beryl Howell granted only a four-day extension, moving the deadline to August 21.
Tinubu’s legal team subsequently backed the DOJ’s request for the additional 10-day extension to respond to the court’s order.
Backstory of the case
Greenspan submitted 12 FOIA requests to six US federal agencies between 2022 and 2023 seeking records related to a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
He requested investigative documents concerning four individuals: Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele, whom he claimed were linked to the narcotics conspiracy.
Five of the agencies responded that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan contacted the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP).
According to court filings, the Office of Information Policy (OIP) sustained the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.
Greenspan initiated legal action on June 12, 2023, challenging the agencies’ Glomar response to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. A Glomar response refers to a formal statement from a U.S. government agency refusing to confirm or deny whether requested documents exist.
The Department of State, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) were named as original defendants.
However, the CIA was subsequently added as a defendant in the first amended complaint.
Recall that In April 2025, Judge Howell held that the responses issued by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted”.
The judge noted that the FBI and DEA failed to establish that a cognizable privacy interest existed in concealing whether Tinubu was the subject of a criminal investigation.
Furthermore, Howell stated that neither agency presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the burden of maintaining their Glomar responses.
Read Also: US Court Gives Attorney Four Days to Release Tinubu-Linked ‘Drug Trafficking’ Records
