A fresh development has reportedly emerged in the long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records allegedly connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and a decades-old U.S. investigation.
A Washington-based lobbying and law firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permission to submit certain documents to the court privately for an in-camera review.
The firm disclosed the development in a post on X, stating that it had been informed that Judge Howell authorised the FBI to provide the documents to the court confidentially.
An in-camera review allows a judge to examine documents privately to determine whether some or all of their contents should remain protected under applicable laws, including exemptions contained in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
According to the firm, the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and President Tinubu have until August 28, 2026, to submit their opposition to the release of the records.
However, the reported court directive had not been independently verified from the court docket at the time of the report. The law firm itself acknowledged that its claim about the development was based on information it received and its social media post.
The dispute stems from FOIA requests filed by American citizen Aaron Greenspan between 2022 and 2023. The requests sought records from the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service and other U.S. agencies relating to an investigation dating back to the 1990s in Chicago.
The case has attracted attention because of records associated with a 1993 civil forfeiture involving approximately $460,000 in funds linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has not been criminally charged in connection with the matter and has maintained that the case was a civil forfeiture matter.
In April 2025, Judge Howell rejected the FBI and DEA’s reliance on a so-called “Glomar response,” under which an agency neither confirms nor denies whether responsive records exist.
The judge reportedly found the agencies’ position unconvincing after the existence of investigations connected to Tinubu had previously been officially acknowledged. She subsequently directed the agencies to release records that were not protected by applicable exemptions, citing the public interest involved.
The latest development concerns whether additional records should be made public or remain confidential because of legal protections.
Von Batten-Montague-York further claimed that the FBI had acknowledged possessing sensitive information relating to the investigation and argued that private judicial review was consistent with procedures used to protect confidential sources and law-enforcement information.
The firm also repeated an allegation that Tinubu had provided information about alleged associates in exchange for immunity. However, that claim remains unverified, and there is no reported U.S. court finding establishing that Tinubu acted as an informant.
The firm has also publicly contrasted the handling of the FOIA matter under the administrations of former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, while thanking Trump and members of his administration for what it described as progress in the case.
The development has generated renewed interest in the long-running dispute, particularly because any documents reviewed privately by Judge Howell could ultimately form the basis for a future ruling on what information, if any, should be released to the public.
The FBI, DEA and DOJ had previously sought additional time to gather and review relevant records.
As of the latest report, there was no public comment from President Tinubu’s U.S. legal representatives concerning the alleged latest court directive.
Importantly, the reported permission for an in-camera review does not by itself mean that the documents contain evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Tinubu. It only indicates that, if the report is accurate, the judge may privately examine the records before deciding whether they are subject to disclosure under FOIA.
READ ALSO:
