A Washington-based lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., has claimed that a US federal court has taken a further step in a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records sought from American law enforcement agencies concerning President Bola Tinubu.
The firm said in an update posted on X that it had been informed that Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia had granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permission to submit the records to the court privately for an in-camera review.
The claim had not, however, been independently confirmed from the court docket at the time of the report.
According to the firm, Howell has given the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Tinubu until 28 August 2026 to oppose the release of the records.
The firm said the deadline was stated as “and no later”, which it interpreted as an indication that the court expected the parties to comply within the specified timeframe.
The reported development relates to a FOIA lawsuit filed by American researcher Aaron Greenspan, who sought records from US agencies concerning alleged investigations into Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele in connection with a Chicago-based drug trafficking and money-laundering investigation in the early 1990s.
In an April 2025 ruling, Judge Howell found that the FBI and DEA could not rely on so-called “Glomar responses” to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to Tinubu and Agbele. The court directed the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
Howell held that the agencies’ position was undermined by prior official acknowledgements of investigations involving Tinubu. She also found that, in the circumstances before the court, the public interest outweighed the privacy interests relied upon by the agencies.
The latest reported development comes from Von Batten-Montague-York rather than from a publicly available court order.
The firm said the court had authorised the FBI to provide the records privately so that the judge could assess whether they should be withheld or released under FOIA exemptions.
An in-camera review allows a judge to examine disputed material privately, without making the documents publicly available, to determine whether particular exemptions from disclosure apply.
Court proceedings show that the case remained active after Howell’s April 2025 ruling. The FBI and DEA subsequently reported that outstanding issues remained, while Tinubu separately sought confirmation that records identifying him could be withheld or redacted under applicable privacy provisions.
In October 2025, Howell denied both Greenspan’s motion to compel production and Tinubu’s motion seeking confirmation of the applicability of FOIA exemptions. The judge said both motions were based on a misunderstanding of her earlier ruling and stressed that the decision did not require the agencies to release material that was otherwise exempt under FOIA.
Greenspan filed multiple FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 seeking records from the FBI, DEA, CIA and other US government agencies concerning alleged investigations into Tinubu and Agbele and a Chicago heroin trafficking operation dating to the early 1990s.
The case has attracted renewed attention because of a 1993 civil forfeiture involving about $460,000 that was linked to Tinubu. Tinubu was not criminally charged in connection with the forfeiture and has consistently characterised the matter as a civil case.
The April 2025 ruling did not establish that Tinubu was guilty of drug trafficking. Rather, it concerned whether the FBI and DEA could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under FOIA.
Von Batten-Montague-York also claimed that the FBI had acknowledged possessing “highly sensitive drug-trafficking-related information” concerning Tinubu and suggested that a private review was consistent with procedures used to protect sensitive law-enforcement information, including information relating to sources.
The firm further contrasted the handling of the case under the administrations of former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, portraying the current administration as more willing to move the matter forward.
It also repeated an allegation that Tinubu had provided information on alleged associates in exchange for immunity. That allegation has not been established by a US court, and there is no basis in the available court record to present it as a finding that Tinubu acted as an informant.
The firm’s claim that it had been hired by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar in March 2026 to protect and strengthen his reputation in the United States is separate from the merits of the FOIA case.
If the reported order is subsequently confirmed, Howell’s in-camera review could determine whether some or all of the records are protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions, including those covering law-enforcement information and privacy interests.
For now, however, the reported 28 August deadline and the alleged authorisation for private review remain claims by the lobbying firm pending confirmation from the court docket.
