Tinubu is fighting efforts to release FBI and DEA records in US courts

Lawyers representing President Bola Tinubu have opposed moves to have his unredacted records by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency released to the public.

The president in his filing before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by his attorneys published on Saturday, noted that the Freedom of Information Act and the US Privacy Act preclude disclosure of information and there is no public interest in the matter.

The President emphasized that the Freedom of Information Act and the US Privacy Act prohibit disclosure of information and that there is no public interest in this matter.

Tinubu also said there was no public interest to be balanced and the plaintiff had an ulterior motive for requesting documents bearing his name.

But the country’s opposition parties opposed the move and said Nigerians had the right to know the President’s past.

His lawyers were identified as Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi.

The President’s filing was in response to a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who requested disclosure of the records under the US Freedom of Information Act.

The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s law enforcement history in the US became a major issue ahead of the presidential election on 25 February 2023 after documents related to civil forfeiture proceedings in the US in 1993 emerged.

The US District Court in Illinois has ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name after the US alleged that the funds represented the proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in illicit financial transactions.

However, the All Progressives Congress stated during the presidential election petition process that the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding and not a criminal conviction.

Labor Party and presidential candidate Peter Obi argued that the confiscation amounted to disqualifying punishment under the Constitution.

The Presidential Election Appeals Tribunal ruled in September 2023 that the applicants failed to prove that Tinubu was arrested, charged, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.

Since then, the opposition and other interested parties have taken action to obtain official information regarding Tinubu from the US.

Greenspan argued that his request concerned “Nigeria’s incumbent President…” and “a country with a population of over 230 million people whose daily lives are directly impacted by President Tinubu’s decisions.”

In his rejection of the FOIA request, Tinubu, according to his attorney’s filing, urged the US District Court to reject the offer because it constituted an attempt to obtain personal information for political purposes in Nigeria.

The President’s attorney noted that the request was made to provide access to information about government activities.

They specifically rejected the argument that Nigerians’ interest in Tinubu’s background constitutes a public interest recognized by US law.

The team also rejected arguments regarding the President’s fitness to hold office, stating that “the public interest in Tinubu’s suitability for office” is not an interest recognized or required to be balanced by FOIA.”

The attorneys further argued that the records sought were protected by privacy provisions under FOIA and the US Privacy Act.

“The redacted information requested by plaintiffs is exempt from disclosure,” they said, citing Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law enforcement records.

READ ALSO: 2027: INEC releases details of gubernatorial candidates (See list)

The President’s legal team relied on the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v Journalists’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, to argue that FOIA was designed to allow the public to know “what the government is doing” rather than to provide access to information about private citizens.

They argued that Greenspan was seeking “disclosure of information about citizens accumulated in various government archives,” which, they said, “reveals little or nothing about the behavior of an agency.”

Tinubu’s lawyers also challenged what they described as the political dimension of the request, arguing that Greenspan’s application showed a focus on obtaining documents containing the President’s name.

“All of plaintiff’s other criticisms must be seen in the context of plaintiff’s primary goals,” the attorneys said.

They added that Greenspan’s filing “strongly suggests that his sole focus was to obtain documents that included the ‘name’ of the intervention.”

The President’s legal team urges courts not to allow the FOIA process to become a means of obtaining information about someone simply because of their political position.

“If this court decides that a plaintiff cannot use FOIA to dig up information in government archives about a particular individual, he or she should not be able to access documents bearing the name of the intervening party,’” the attorneys said.

They further challenged claims that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.

The team described the claims as speculative and not supported by evidence.

The attorney added, “Unsubstantiated allegations are easy to assert in a filing, but are not enough to justify requesting information about an individual.”

They stated that Greenspan failed to provide evidence capable of proving that the government’s alleged wrongdoing had occurred, as required under US case law.

“Plaintiffs do not bear the burden of obtaining law enforcement records that name or identify individuals,” they said.

The President’s legal team also disputed the argument that his privacy interests had been extinguished because some information related to the historical investigation had previously been made public.

Greenspan argued that the general nature of the investigation had been in the public domain since 1993.

But Tinubu’s lawyers said that the 1993 forfeiture proceedings, including the affidavit filed in the case, did not reveal details or results of any possible criminal investigation involving the President.

The attorneys argued that even if some of the information has previously appeared in the public record, a person can maintain a privacy interest in the details that remain confidential.

Therefore, they asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to retain their redactions and suppress their records.

Among the records sought are “the entire FBI file” on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records involving him from 1992 to 1993.

The ongoing FOIA case concerns access to US government records and is not a criminal prosecution or finding that Tinubu committed drug trafficking offenses.