Anyone praying for fuel subsidy return does not mean well for Nigeria – Alex Otti

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has defended its decision to withhold portions of investigative records sought in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving records relating to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The position was contained in a September 23, 2026 filing by the United States government before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al.

Greenspan, who filed the FOIA requests, is seeking records from US law-enforcement agencies relating to Tinubu and other individuals in connection with an investigation into an alleged international drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation dating back to the early 1990s.

The case involves records requested from agencies including the FBI and DEA. In an April 2025 ruling, US District Judge Beryl Howell described the litigation as involving requests for criminal investigative documents concerning Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele that Greenspan said were generated during a federal investigation into an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering ring.

In its latest filing, the government defended the DEA’s reliance on several FOIA exemptions to withhold portions of the investigative material.

The government referred to a declaration submitted by the DEA, known as the Davis Declaration, as well as a Vaughn Index outlining the agency’s reasons for withholding specific categories of information.

DEA Explains Similar Entries in Vaughn Index

Greenspan had challenged the DEA’s Vaughn Index, arguing that some of the entries contained similar explanations for withholding information.

The government rejected the criticism, explaining that the records consisted of similar categories of investigative documents, including DEA-6, DEA-292 and DEA-210 reports.

According to the government, because the documents were similar investigative forms and records, it was reasonable for the DEA to rely on similar explanations and FOIA exemptions when justifying the withholding of information.

The filing therefore indicates that the records at issue include formal DEA investigative reports.

Confidential Sources

A major part of the government’s defence concerned information relating to confidential sources.

The government said the DEA had explained in its declaration the potential harm that could arise from releasing such information.

Quoting the Davis Declaration, the filing said information concerning confidential sources “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source.”

The DEA also argued that information capable of identifying confidential sources receives strong protection under the FOIA law-enforcement exemptions.

The agency maintained that disclosure could expose individuals who had provided information to law enforcement and potentially undermine the protection afforded to such sources.

According to the government, the DEA therefore determined that the interest in protecting confidential-source information outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the withheld material.

DEA Defends Withholding Investigative Techniques

The government also defended the DEA’s reliance on FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects certain information concerning law-enforcement techniques and procedures when disclosure could create specified risks.

The filing referred to the plaintiff’s position that non-public details of investigative techniques could properly be withheld, while Greenspan sought access to a redacted ex parte declaration filed under seal.

The government argued that the sealed declaration did not undermine its reliance on the exemption.

It maintained that the disputed material arose from what it described as a “criminal investigation of a drug operation” and that disclosure of non-public investigative methods could reveal how law-enforcement authorities conducted or documented their investigation.

Court Record Connects FOIA Case to Tinubu

The latest filing primarily addresses the government’s legal justification for withholding information. It does not disclose the substantive contents of the DEA records relating to Tinubu.

The broader litigation, however, has previously established that Tinubu is among the individuals named in the FOIA requests.

In her April 2025 ruling, Judge Howell identified the case as a dispute over Greenspan’s requests for FBI, DEA and CIA records concerning Tinubu and Agbele. The requests were connected to a Nigerian heroin-distribution organisation that the plaintiff said was active from approximately 1988 to 1994 or later.

The court’s 2025 ruling also dealt with the agencies’ earlier use of a “Glomar” response, under which an agency refuses to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.

Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could not maintain their Glomar responses under the circumstances because the existence of the relevant investigation had already been officially acknowledged.

The subsequent litigation has therefore moved beyond the initial question of whether the agencies could refuse to acknowledge the existence of responsive records and into disputes over what information can lawfully be released or withheld.

Filing Does Not Establish Criminal Conduct

The latest government filing does not state how many DEA records refer to Tinubu or what those records contain.

It does not disclose the identities of confidential sources, the information allegedly provided by any source, the investigative conclusions reached by DEA agents or whether the records contain evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.

It also does not establish that Tinubu was charged with or convicted of a drug-trafficking or money-laundering offence in connection with the investigation.

Rather, the September 23 filing concerns the DEA’s legal justification for withholding portions of records in response to Greenspan’s FOIA request.

The FOIA litigation remains focused on access to government records and the extent to which information contained in those records may be disclosed under US law.

Stay Connected

Follow Very Nigerian

Get the latest Nigerian news, trending stories and breaking updates directly on WhatsApp.

Join Our Channel →