United States Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI, Resurrects President Bola Ahmed Tinubu 1993 Drug Case.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has delivered records relating to President Bola Tinubu’s alleged 1993 drug-trafficking and money-laundering probe to a United States federal judge for confidential consideration.

The documents were handed to Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, August 28.

The move follows a court order directing the FBI to comply with a deadline in the protracted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute.

Rather than releasing the materials to the public or providing them to Aaron Greenspan—a U.S.-based transparency advocate who has been seeking access—the FBI submitted them “under seal, ex parte, in camera,” according to court filings. In practical terms, the materials have been placed under seal and presented privately to Judge Howell for her assessment.

This development does not, on its own, mean the records have been made public, nor does it indicate that the court has issued any new determination against Tinubu.

Judge Howell will instead review the contents and decide whether the FBI has adequate legal basis to withhold some—or potentially all—of the documents.

The submission comes after months of friction among the FBI, the court, and Greenspan over the release of records tied to investigations involving Tinubu in the early 1990s.

Greenspan first pursued the records through FOIA requests before filing suit against several U.S. government agencies. He also worked with Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin during the effort.

Among the materials sought is the FBI file pertaining to Tinubu, as well as interview documentation from the 1992–1993 period—commonly referenced as Form 302 reports.

The disagreement has persisted for years, with U.S. agencies repeatedly requesting additional time to review the records and determine what portions may be lawfully disclosed.

Judge Howell ultimately grew increasingly firm about the delays and set August 28 as a key deadline for the parties.

Earlier, the FBI sought the court’s permission to provide at least part of its justification for withholding records privately. The bureau argued that a full explanation in open court could reveal sensitive law-enforcement information.

The FBI cited multiple FOIA exemptions, including provisions addressing personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative techniques, and information that could plausibly endanger an individual’s safety.

In an earlier filing, the FBI stated, “The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”

That request cleared the path for the confidential submission now before Judge Howell.

The case traces back to allegations and investigative activity involving Tinubu during his time in the United States in the early 1990s.

One component of the dispute involves a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Chicago involving roughly $460,000. Publicly available court records have previously shown that funds associated with Tinubu were forfeited to the U.S. government.

Tinubu has denied wrongdoing and has not been criminally convicted in connection with the matter.

His legal team has also opposed the release of the records, contending that disclosure would violate his privacy rights. In prior filings, Tinubu argued that releasing additional materials could expose private information without establishing any new criminal finding against him.

His lawyers have further noted that certain aspects of the underlying dispute have already entered the public record.

Rather than immediately turning the documents over to Greenspan, the FBI has instead placed them before the judge. Judge Howell will determine which portions, if any, remain protected under applicable U.S. law.

In U.S. legal practice, this private judicial review is referred to as an “in-camera” review. It enables a judge to examine contested materials directly when the government argues that publicly explaining the contents—or the reasons for withholding them—would itself disclose protected information.

The FBI’s submission of the documents does not automatically ensure that the material will eventually be released. Judge Howell could order disclosure of some records, uphold the withholding of other portions, or require the FBI to provide additional information before issuing a final ruling.

While the review is underway, the records remain unavailable to Greenspan and the public.

In a separate development, some media had previously reported that Tinubu had joined the U.S. Department of Justice in seeking more time in the FOIA case concerning the records. The president’s legal team had opposed disclosure, arguing that releasing the documents would infringe on his privacy.