The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has filed a motion seeking to submit ex parte in camera declarations on why it withheld information about its investigative records relating to allegations of drug trafficking against President Bola Tinubu.
An ex parte in camera declaration is a written statement
submitted solely to a judge by a party in a legal case.
In an application dated August 20, the FBI told the US
district court in Columbia that it cannot publicly explain all the reasons it
is withholding certain records, hence the need for an ex parte in camera
declaration.
A copy of the application was published on X by Von
Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying firm recently hired by Atiku
Abubakar, the former vice-president and presidential candidate of the African
Democratic Congress (ADC) for the 2027 elections.
The FBI said it has invoked various Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) exemptions against the requests for Tinubu’s records from 1992 to
1993.
The US law enforcement agency said if it acceded to the
requests, it “would, among other things, disclose techniques and procedures for
law enforcement investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger
the life or physical safety of any individual”.
Part of the FBI’s application reads: “One of the requests at
issue is the request assigned Request Number 1588244-000, which sought “[t]he
entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of
Nigeria as of February 2023”.
“Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the FBI
seeking “FBI 302 interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No.
245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe 1992-1993”.
“This was assigned Request Number 1593615-000. The FBI has
invoked various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions, including 6,
7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) regarding these requests, and determined the
information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed, would, among
other things, disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations and/or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or
physical safety of any individual.
“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.”
The FBI said if the court grants the permission to submit an
ex parte in camera declaration, it would explain reasons for withholding
certain information before August 28.
The plaintiff in the case is Aaron Greenspan, the American
founder of PlainSite.
Recently, the US Department of Justice requested an
additional 10-day extension to respond to a court order concerning the release
of records related to allegations of drug trafficking against Tinubu.
However, Beryl Howell, the judge, granted only four
additional days, until August 21.
Subsequently, Tinubu, through his legal team, joined the US
DOJ’s request seeking an additional 10-day extension to respond to a court
order.
Howell was said to have declined Tinubu’s request.
THE CASE
In 2022 and 2023, Greenspan filed 12 FOIA requests with six
different US federal agencies seeking information from criminal investigations
into a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s.
Greenspan sought investigative records about four named
individuals allegedly associated with the drug ring, including Tinubu, Lee
Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele.
Five of the US agencies responded, saying that they could
neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records.
Dissatisfied with the responses, Greenspan approached the US
DOJ’s office of information policy (OIP).
The OIP affirmed the agencies’ refusal to confirm or deny
the existence of the requested records, according to the court documents.
On June 12, 2023, Greenspan filed a lawsuit challenging the
agencies’ Glomar response to his FOIA requests. A Glomar response is an
official statement by a US government agency refusing to confirm or deny
whether requested records exist.
The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(EOUSA), and Department of State were initially named as defendants.
However, the CIA was later named as a defendant in the first
amended complaint.
In April 2025, Judge Howell held that the responses issued
by the FBI and DEA were “improper and must be lifted”.
The judge ruled that the FBI and DEA failed to provide
information to “establish cognizable privacy interest exists in keeping secret
the fact that Tinubu was a subject of criminal investigation”.
Howell held that the two agencies failed to provide evidence
demonstrating the burden of sustaining their Glomar responses.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com