NEWS
DEA Explains Why Tinubu-Linked Investigative Records Remain Withheld in US FOIA Case
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has provided further explanation for its decision to withhold portions of investigative records connected to a long-running US law-enforcement investigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
According to the US government, the redacted material contains information that could identify confidential sources, expose non-public investigative techniques and procedures, or otherwise reveal sensitive details relating to law-enforcement activities.
The explanation was contained in a September 23, 2026 court filing in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case, Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., is a civil dispute over access to government records. It is not a criminal prosecution of President Tinubu.
American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan initiated the litigation after seeking historical records from several US federal agencies concerning investigations involving Tinubu, Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele and other individuals.
The latest filing came as the US government defended the DEA’s handling of the records and its decision to redact or withhold portions of the documents under exemptions contained in the US FOIA law.
The government said the DEA had relied on agency declarations and a Vaughn Index, a document used in FOIA litigation to identify withheld material and explain the legal basis for withholding it. The records at issue include several categories of DEA investigative documents, including DEA-6 Reports, DEA-292 Reports and DEA-210 Reports.
Greenspan had questioned why several entries in the DEA’s Vaughn Index contained similar explanations for withholding information. The government responded that the similarities reflected the fact that the documents belonged to comparable categories of investigative records and were therefore subject to similar legal protections. The government also relied on the Davis Declaration to explain the potential harm that could result from releasing the withheld material.
Confidential Sources Among Information Protected:
A central part of the DEA’s argument concerns information relating to confidential sources. The government maintained that releasing such information could reveal the identities of individuals who provided information to investigators and potentially undermine the protections afforded to confidential sources under FOIA. The filing stated that information relating to confidential sources could reasonably be expected to disclose their identities.
The government further argued that such information receives particularly strong protection under the FOIA framework because revealing it could compromise individuals who assisted law-enforcement authorities.
The DEA’s position is that the legal interest in protecting confidential sources outweighs the relatively limited public interest associated with disclosure of the particular information withheld in the records.
The filing, however, did not identify any confidential source or disclose the information provided by such individuals.
DEA Also Cites Protection of Investigative Techniques:
The US government also defended the DEA’s reliance on FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects certain law-enforcement information where disclosure could reveal investigative techniques or procedures that are not generally known to the public. The government maintained that releasing portions of the records could expose non-public methods used by law-enforcement authorities during the investigation. The records arose from what the filing described as a criminal investigation of a drug operation. However, the latest court submission did not disclose the substantive findings of that investigation. It also did not reveal the contents of interviews, investigative reports or other protected material contained in the records.
Instead, the government’s argument focused on why certain categories of information could legally remain confidential even after other portions of the records had been released.
How Tinubu Became Part of the FOIA Dispute:
The dispute has its roots in FOIA requests submitted by Greenspan to several US federal agencies seeking historical records connected to investigations dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Tinubu’s name appears in the litigation because Greenspan sought records concerning US investigations involving him and other individuals, including records connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds held in an account associated with Tinubu. The litigation has undergone several stages since the original FOIA requests.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on so-called Glomar responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain records concerning Tinubu.
The US Department of Justice’s summary of the ruling confirms that the DEA’s Glomar response to one of the relevant FOIA requests had to be lifted.
A Glomar response allows a US government agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
Judge Howell’s 2025 ruling found that the agencies had not established a sufficient privacy basis for maintaining the Glomar responses in the circumstances before the court, particularly where the existence of the relevant investigation had already been publicly acknowledged. Following that ruling, the agencies were required to search for and process records that were not otherwise exempt from disclosure. That process has resulted in the release of some records, while other portions remain redacted or withheld under applicable FOIA exemptions.
Records Remain Partially Shielded:
The latest development therefore does not amount to a public release of the substantive contents of the withheld investigative files.
Rather, the September 23 filing explains why the DEA believes particular portions of those records remain protected from disclosure.
The government’s position centres on two major categories of concern: protecting confidential sources and preventing disclosure of non-public investigative techniques.
The ongoing FOIA proceedings are consequently focused not simply on whether records exist, but on which portions of those records can legally be disclosed to the public. The court has yet to make a final determination on every disputed withholding.
The available court record establishes that the litigation concerns access to historical US government records and that the existence of an investigation or investigative records, by itself, does not establish criminal wrongdoing by any person named in those records.