Nigerian President Bola Tinubu has filed a motion on September 4, 2025, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, urging enforcement of exemptions under the Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 7(C) to prevent disclosure of personal records held by the FBI and DEA. Represented by lead counsel Wole Afolabi, Tinubu contends that activist Aaron Greenspan’s FOIA requests—seeking his entire FBI and DEA files—are aimed at exposing his private life rather than illuminating government wrongdoing.
This legal intervention follows a court ruling in April 2025 by Judge Beryl Howell, ordering the agencies to comply with FOIA’s requirements and produce unredacted files—a judgment Botswana’s team now challenges.
Greenspan, who leads the FOIA effort, pushed back by filing a motion to reject Tinubu’s plea. He accuses the president of weaponizing his office to target critics and obscure matters from public scrutiny. Tinubu’s lawyers counter that even high-profile figures retain certain privacy rights, arguing Greenspan’s request lacks substantive public interest since it pertains to matters predating his presidency.
Context, Legal Dynamics & Implications
Aspect Details
Legal Precedent & Procedural Status Judge Howell’s April 2025 order dismissed agency claims to withhold records (via Glomar responses), stating such resistance was “neither logical nor plausible.” Tinubu now seeks to revive those exemptions.
FOIA Exemption 7(C) Applies to “law enforcement records” whose release would result in an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Courts require that such records be compiled for legitimate law enforcement purposes and demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably harm privacy.
Privacy vs. Public Interest Tinubu’s team argues FOIA isn’t a tool for exposing private individuals, especially when the subject wasn’t a public official during the time in question. Greenspan counters that the public deserves transparency regarding all foreign leaders under U.S. scrutiny.
Analysis & Stakes
Legal Battle Over Privacy vs. Transparency: This is more than a procedural fight—it pivots on whether FOIA protects an individual’s historic, personal records when requested by a third-party requesting “all records” without a clear government-focused purpose.
Precedent Effects: A ruling in Tinubu’s favor could embolden other global officials to shield their history. Conversely, Greenspan’s success could signal stronger precedent for transparency—even for non-Americans.
Political Shadows: Though technically a U.S. legal proceeding, this case has clear political reverberations back home in Nigeria. Some view it as a preemptive effort to avoid domestic scrutiny; others argue it reinforces a citizen’s right to privacy, irrespective of status.
Watch Points:
Will the court uphold the earlier April mandate, or bend to retroactive privacy claims?
Could the agencies resist Tinubu’s motion and proceed with the scheduled release of records?
How might this case inform future FOIA litigation involving foreign or former officials?
Bottom Line
This dispute throws FOIA’s intent and limits into sharp relief. At its core: Should an activist’s curiosity about the past override protections for personal privacy—even decades old? If Judge Howell upholds her earlier ruling, agencies must comply—and transparency wins. If Tinubu prevails, privacy may set a strong precedent—even for foreign public figures.
Sources Cited:
Tinubu’s motion & legal stance:
Court’s prior April order requiring records:
FOIA Exemption 7(C) scope and application:
Headlinenews.news Special Investigative Report.
