Tinubu’s Lawyers Admit Errors In U.S. Court Filing Over 1990s Drug Probe Records
Lawyers representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have admitted making errors in an earlier filing before a United States federal court in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute over records linked to historical investigations involving the Nigerian President.
The legal team made the admission in a motion filed on October 1, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to allow them to replace or amend their earlier response.
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., concerns a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for additional records held by U.S. government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
According to the lawyers, the earlier filing contained incorrect references concerning the year 1993, Tinubu's public office at the time and a comparison involving student enrolment.
The legal team said the relevant section was intended to establish that the investigative events under discussion occurred decades before Tinubu became President of Nigeria.
However, they acknowledged that the reference to Tinubu's public office and the year 1993 was expressed "inadequately and incorrectly."
They also admitted that a separate comparison involving the age of the investigative records and a student-enrolment event was inaccurate because the enrolment event occurred before the investigative events being discussed.
The lawyers attributed the mistakes to the drafting and revision process, saying they were unintended and were not detected before the document was filed.
Lawyers Say Errors Do Not Change Main Argument
Despite acknowledging the mistakes, Tinubu's lawyers maintained that the corrections do not alter the substance of their legal argument.
They are continuing to oppose Greenspan's request for additional or unredacted FBI and DEA records, arguing that portions of the material are protected by privacy provisions under the U.S. FOIA law and the Privacy Act.
The legal team has also argued that Tinubu's subsequent position as President does not automatically extinguish privacy protections relating to records concerning events that occurred decades before he assumed office.
The lawyers further maintain that information previously disclosed in connection with a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding did not necessarily make the contents of wider investigative files public.
The forfeiture proceeding involved approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu, according to reports on the litigation. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
Greenspan Seeks Further Records
Greenspan is seeking additional records from U.S. agencies relating to historical investigations dating principally to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
His FOIA litigation has been ongoing since 2023 and has included disputes over the FBI and DEA's handling of records, redactions and withholding of information.
Tinubu's lawyers have asked the court to reject Greenspan's motion for summary judgment and allow the existing redactions and withholdings to remain in place.
The lawyers have also disputed claims that the requested records would establish government wrongdoing, arguing that allegations of a hidden prosecution, secret agreement or cover-up have not been sufficiently substantiated.
No New Criminal Case Against Tinubu
The latest development is a procedural development in an existing civil FOIA case, not the filing of a new criminal prosecution against President Tinubu.
The admission of errors by his lawyers also does not, by itself, establish that the underlying investigative records contain evidence of criminal conduct by the President.
Rather, the immediate issue before the U.S. court is whether additional records sought by Greenspan should be released, and whether information withheld or redacted by U.S. agencies is protected under applicable privacy and law-enforcement exemptions.
The U.S. court has yet to determine the substantive issues raised by the parties in the latest filings.
The Analyst Online Media will continue to monitor the proceedings and report further developments as they emerge from the court.