US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has asked US District Judge Beryl Howell for additional time to complete the government’s review of highly sensitive records connected to a long running Freedom of Information Act case involving Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The request comes as the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and US Attorneys Office work on the government’s response to the court over records stemming from a historical investigation involving Tinubu. According to reporting on the latest filing, the government has sought additional time because portions of the material are considered sufficiently sensitive to require private judicial review. The process could involve an ex parte and in camera examination of two declarations, meaning the court would review the material privately rather than as part of the public record.
The latest development follows a series of deadlines in the case and represents another significant turn in a legal battle that has continued for more than three years.
The government’s earlier deadline was August 21, 2026. The latest request seeks to move that deadline to August 28, giving federal officials another week to complete their review and prepare their submission to Judge Howell.
The case has attracted renewed attention because the FBI and DEA were previously ordered to search for and process non exempt records relating to Tinubu after the court rejected their attempts to use so called Glomar responses to neither confirm nor deny whether responsive records existed.
Judge Howell ruled on April 8, 2025 that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on those Glomar responses in the disputed portions of the case. She concluded that previous government disclosures had already acknowledged the agencies involvement in investigations connected to Tinubu, making continued reliance on the responses improper. The CIA, however, successfully maintained its Glomar position in relation to the records sought from that agency.
The litigation was brought by American transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan, who filed multiple FOIA requests in 2022 and 2023 seeking records from the FBI, DEA and other federal agencies concerning an alleged early 1990s investigation involving Tinubu and others.
The FBI and DEA had initially responded to several requests by refusing to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed. Judge Howell subsequently ordered the two agencies to search for and process records that were not protected from disclosure. The case has continued through additional deadlines, status reports, motions and disputes over what material can legally be withheld or redacted.
Tinubu later intervened in the litigation to assert privacy interests in the records. In a September 2025 filing, his lawyers asked the court to confirm that the agencies could withhold or redact records identifying him under FOIA privacy protections and the Privacy Act. The filing identified outstanding FBI and DEA requests and noted that the FBI anticipated making an interim response.
The historical background to the controversy dates to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Federal authorities were investigating a heroin trafficking and money laundering network that operated in the Chicago area during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The investigation involved individuals including Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele, among others. Records from the litigation and subsequent reporting have connected the investigation to bank accounts associated with Tinubu.
A federal forfeiture proceeding resulted in approximately $460,000 being forfeited to the US government from an account associated with Tinubu. The proceeding was civil rather than a criminal prosecution. Tinubu was not criminally charged or convicted in the United States in connection with the forfeiture matter, and he has consistently denied wrongdoing and any involvement in drug trafficking.
That distinction remains central to the current dispute. The existence of investigative records, a historical forfeiture proceeding or a court order requiring federal agencies to process records does not itself establish that Tinubu committed a criminal offense.
Greenspan’s FOIA campaign sought to determine what federal agencies actually possess concerning the historical investigation and what those records reveal. His lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2023, initially involved requests directed at several agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, Department of Justice components, the State Department and the IRS. The litigation was subsequently narrowed to specific disputes over agency responses concerning Tinubu and Agbele.
Judge Howell’s April 2025 ruling became a major turning point. The court held that the FBI and DEA had improperly relied on Glomar responses and ordered them to search for and process non exempt records. The decision did not order the automatic release of every document. Instead, it required the agencies to conduct the searches and process responsive material in accordance with FOIA, leaving lawful exemptions and redactions to be considered.
The latest request for additional time therefore does not necessarily mean that the records will become public in full. Sensitive information can remain subject to statutory exemptions, privacy protections, classification restrictions or other legal safeguards. The significance of the current filing is that the government is continuing to address the court ordered disclosure process rather than relying solely on the earlier blanket Glomar position.
Von Batten Montague York, a Washington based policy advisory and lobbying firm involved in the broader campaign for disclosure, has welcomed the renewed efforts by Pirro and the Justice Department. The firm has argued that the records should ultimately be made public and that the US relationship with Nigeria should not prevent disclosure of material that can legally be released.
The organization has also pointed to the historical seizure of funds from accounts associated with Tinubu and the absence of criminal charges. The firm has suggested that the circumstances could indicate that Tinubu was identified during the investigation and may have reached some form of arrangement with US authorities. That interpretation is the firms allegation and has not been established by the publicly available court record.
The firm has continued pressing the Department of Justice, FBI and DEA for records relating to the historical investigation and has urged the Trump administration and Congress to pursue maximum lawful disclosure.
Its broader argument is that transparency is necessary to protect confidence in US institutions and prevent another unresolved controversy involving a foreign political leader. The firm has also invoked recent developments involving Venezuela as a warning that unresolved questions surrounding sensitive international investigations can become larger political and diplomatic controversies.
The dispute now enters another critical phase as the government seeks additional time to complete its handling of the most sensitive material. If Judge Howell permits the requested extension, federal officials will have until August 28 to complete the next stage of their work. The court will then have to determine how the government’s declarations and proposed treatment of the records should be handled.
For Greenspan and other transparency advocates, the central issue remains whether the American public will finally gain access to the non exempt portions of records surrounding a decades old investigation that has remained politically contentious in Nigeria and the United States.
For Tinubu, the case continues to raise privacy and reputational concerns over records tied to a civil forfeiture proceeding in which he was never criminally convicted.
And for the Justice Department, FBI and DEA, the latest request places the government under renewed scrutiny over how it balances transparency, privacy, law enforcement interests and potentially sensitive information while complying with a federal judges disclosure orders.
The latest filing therefore represents more than another routine deadline extension. It is the newest step in a three year legal battle over what the US government knows, what it can lawfully disclose and how much of the historical record involving Nigerias president will ultimately become public.
