Tinubu Invokes FOIA Exemption 7(C) to Shield Personal Records in US Court Battle

The Presidency has confirmed that President Bola Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, has invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), a provision of US law designed to protect against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, in the ongoing civil records-disclosure dispute before a Washington, DC, federal court.

The move comes as the FBI and DEA have released 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under multiple legal exemptions, and as the Presidency insists the case is a civil matter, not a criminal trial.

A President’s Privacy Claim in a US Court

The Presidency has confirmed that President Bola Tinubu has invoked his privacy rights under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption in the ongoing legal proceedings before a United States federal court in Washington, DC.

The case, which has generated intense public interest and political debate in Nigeria, centres on a civil records-disclosure dispute filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the US Freedom of Information Act.

At its heart is a fundamental question: should the private records of a sitting president, collected by US law enforcement agencies decades ago, be released to the public?

The Legal Framework: FOIA Exemption 7(C)

In a detailed statement on Thursday, September 3, 2026, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, clarified that Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C) .

FOIA Exemption 7(C) is a provision of US law that protects law enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”.

The exemption is designed to prevent the release of information that could expose private individuals to embarrassment, harassment, or other harm, even when that information is contained in government files.

The Presidency argued that the release of the requested records could violate Tinubu’s privacy rights, maintaining that FOIA should not be used as a tool to obtain information government agencies collected about private individuals.

Tinubu’s legal team has maintained that the disclosure of personal information contained in government archives would infringe on the President’s privacy rights.

The Civil Nature of the Dispute

The Presidency has been at pains to emphasise that the case is not a criminal trial and has not resulted in any finding of criminal wrongdoing against Tinubu.

“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga stated.

The case began in 2022 when Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

In 2023, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, enabling him to protect his privacy interests in the records being sought.

The FBI and DEA’s Role

Several US agencies, including the CIA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the IRS, have been removed from the case after invoking the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records.

However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remain parties to the suit and have produced 399 pages of records.

Portions of these records were redacted under exemptions provided by US law. The redactions are based on several legal protections, including:

· Grand jury secrecy (FOIA Exemption 3)

· Attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product (FOIA Exemption 5)

· Law enforcement purposes (FOIA Exemption 5)

· Personal privacy (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C))

· Confidential sources and investigative techniques (FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E))

The Privacy Argument

Tinubu’s legal team has argued that releasing the records would violate his privacy rights and that FOIA should not be used as a tool to obtain information government agencies collected about private individuals.

The President’s lawyers have maintained that Judge Beryl A. Howell’s April 2025 ruling, which rejected the FBI and DEA’s initial Glomar responses, did not eliminate Tinubu’s privacy rights over the contents of any investigative files.

The Presidency also recalled that, 23 years earlier, the American Consulate in Lagos, in a February 4, 2003 letter to then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.

A Political Dimension

The case has taken on a political dimension in Nigeria, with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and others calling for the release of the records.

The Presidency has alleged that Greenspan had worked with Nigerian opposition figures, including Atiku and journalist David Hundeyin.

Onanuga has faulted recent commentary by Karl von Batten, noting that neither he nor his client is a party to the suit.

He stressed that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Howell, who will determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments.

What Happens Next

Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to respond to the defendants’ and intervenor’s filings, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond further.

The court’s decision on whether information should be released or withheld will not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

A Lesson for Nigerian Youths

This case is a reminder that privacy is a fundamental right, even for public figures.

The politicians who demand transparency from others often fight to protect their own privacy when the spotlight turns on them.

The same individuals who champion open government will never allow their own private lives to be exposed to public scrutiny.

Their children are protected from such invasions.

For young Nigerians, the lesson is clear: the fight for transparency must be balanced with respect for privacy.

The public has a right to know about the conduct of its leaders, but that right is not absolute.

FOIA Exemption 7(C) exists precisely because the law recognises that some information, even when held by the government, should remain private.

Demand accountability. But also respect the boundaries of privacy. And remember: the same tools that can expose wrongdoing can also be weaponised to destroy innocent lives.