A United States federal judge has dealt a major setback to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration after ruling that the agencies failed to provide sufficient legal reasons for withholding most records from a 1990s investigation into a Chicago based heroin trafficking and money laundering operation involving Nigeria’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia delivered the ruling on October 30, 2026, in a case filed by Aaron Greenspan against the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and other federal agencies.
The case, registered as Civil Action No. 23 cv 1816, centres on Freedom of Information Act requests seeking investigative records linked to an alleged drug trafficking and money laundering network that operated in the Chicago area during the early 1990s.
In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Howell found that the FBI and DEA had failed to adequately explain why most of the requested records should remain secret, particularly where important details of the investigation had already been disclosed in public court documents dating back to 1993.
The judge directed the agencies to provide additional explanations addressing information already available in the public domain, the possibility of releasing non exempt portions of the records and whether continued secrecy could cause reasonably foreseeable harm.
How the case started
Greenspan, who represented himself without a lawyer, submitted 12 Freedom of Information Act requests between 2022 and 2023 to the FBI, DEA, Central Intelligence Agency, Internal Revenue Service, Executive Office of United States Attorneys and Department of State.
He wanted criminal investigative documents generated during a joint investigation involving the FBI, IRS, DEA and United States Attorney offices for the Northern District of Indiana and Northern District of Illinois.
The investigation focused on a Chicago based heroin trafficking and money laundering operation believed to have been active from approximately 1988 to 1994 or later.
Four individuals were named in the requests: Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Abiodun Agbele, Lee Andrew Edwards and Mueez Abegboyega Akande.
Tinubu is now Nigeria’s president, while Agbele was identified in the investigation as an alleged associate. Claims concerning Edwards and Akande were later narrowed or waived through agreements between the parties.
Only four requests involving the FBI and DEA remain in dispute.
On July 21, 2022, Greenspan asked the DEA for records held by its Hammond, Indiana, or Washington, DC, offices concerning the Nigerian heroin distribution organisation allegedly connected to Tinubu and Edwards.
The request specifically referred to a civil forfeiture complaint and an IRS affidavit filed in Northern District of Illinois Case No. 1:93 CV 04483. The DEA registered the request as 22 00892 F but refused to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.
On March 29, 2023, Greenspan requested the entire FBI file concerning Bola Ahmed Tinubu, born March 29, 1952. The FBI assigned Request Number 1588244 000 and issued a neither confirm nor deny response, citing privacy exemptions.
In May 2023, he submitted another request seeking FBI 302 interview reports involving Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245 IP 71386 during 1992 and 1993. The request was registered as 1593615 000, but the FBI again refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records.
On December 5, 2023, Greenspan requested the DEA’s case file concerning Abiodun Agbele covering January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, in the Northern District of Indiana or Northern District of Illinois. The DEA registered the request as 24 00201 F and also refused to confirm or deny whether the documents existed.
Tinubu intervened in the lawsuit
Greenspan filed the lawsuit on June 12, 2023, after encountering difficulties obtaining the requested records.
In October 2023, he sought emergency relief, referring to arguments before Nigeria’s Supreme Court concerning Tinubu’s election.
The court rejected that request.
Tinubu subsequently applied to intervene in the case, citing privacy interests in confidential tax records and law enforcement documents. The court granted his application, allowing him to participate in the proceedings.
Other federal agencies were later dismissed from the case.
In April 2025, the CIA secured summary judgment after the court found that Greenspan had failed to demonstrate that the agency had officially acknowledged the existence of responsive records.
The 1993 affidavit that changed everything
A major turning point came on April 8, 2025, when Judge Howell rejected the FBI’s and DEA’s attempts to use neither confirm nor deny responses to avoid addressing the requests.
The judge pointed to public court documents from the early 1990s that had already disclosed the existence of criminal investigations involving Tinubu and Agbele.
One of the most important documents was a verified civil forfeiture complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice on July 26, 1993, in the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint sought the forfeiture of funds held in a First Heritage Bank account in the name of Bola Tinubu.
Attached to the complaint was an affidavit prepared by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss.
The affidavit contained details of the investigation and explicitly disclosed in at least four paragraphs that the DEA had investigated Agbele.
It also outlined the basis for probable cause to believe that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Tinubu were connected to financial transactions that violated Sections 1956 and 1957 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Those provisions concern money laundering.
The affidavit further stated that the funds represented proceeds of drug trafficking.
The court found that public filings made by the Department of Justice amounted to official acknowledgment of the relevant information, binding on the FBI and DEA.
Consequently, the agencies could not continue using broad privacy arguments to refuse to confirm or deny information that the government itself had already officially placed in the public record.
The judge also found that the agencies had failed to establish a valid privacy interest capable of supporting their earlier responses in light of those disclosures.
FBI and DEA released hundreds of pages but withheld most records
Following the April 2025 decision, the FBI and DEA began processing hundreds of pages of responsive documents.
Between February 13 and June 1, 2026, the agencies made several interim releases to Greenspan.
However, the majority of the records were withheld either completely or partially.
None of the documents released to Greenspan included Tinubu’s name.
The FBI also released a redacted version of the Kevin Moss affidavit, removing Tinubu’s name and other details, despite the fact that the same affidavit had already appeared without those redactions in public court records in 1993 and again before the court in 2024.
This became a central issue in the latest proceedings, as the agencies were expected to explain why information already available to the public continued to be withheld from the requested files.
Judge rejects most of the agencies’ secrecy arguments
In the latest ruling, Judge Howell denied Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety but also rejected the FBI’s and DEA’s request for summary judgment on several major exemptions.
The judge agreed with the FBI on two important points.
First, the FBI had conducted an adequate search for the requested records.
Second, the FBI was legally entitled to withhold certain materials under Exemption 5, which protects attorney work product and related privileged information.
However, the judge refused to grant the agencies summary judgment on Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F).
These exemptions cover information protected by other federal laws, personal privacy, confidential sources, law enforcement techniques and information that could endanger someone’s life or physical safety.
The exemptions also involve restrictions covering grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the Pen Register Act, Title III wiretap provisions and Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The judge found that the agencies had not provided enough detailed evidence to justify their continued reliance on these exemptions.
In particular, their explanations failed to adequately address the age of the investigation and the fact that important information concerning Tinubu and Agbele had been publicly available for decades.
The agencies were therefore required to explain why information already disclosed in the 1993 court filings could not be separated from genuinely protected material and released.
Court questions claims of possible harm
Another significant issue involved the FBI’s reliance on Exemption 7(F), which allows information to be withheld where disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety.
The agencies had submitted a confidential declaration to the court containing claims about violent acts abroad.
However, Judge Howell found that the incidents described were unrelated to the case and were not credibly likely to increase because of the release of decades old information that had remained in the public domain for many years.
The judge concluded that the agencies’ explanations were not sufficiently connected to the actual facts of the case.
The ruling made clear that federal agencies cannot rely on general claims of possible danger without demonstrating how releasing the particular information in question could create a reasonably foreseeable risk.
FBI and DEA given November 27 deadline
Judge Howell directed the parties to confer and submit a joint proposed schedule by November 27, 2026, for any renewed cross motions for summary judgment.
The FBI and DEA must support their renewed arguments with supplemental declarations that provide detailed explanations for each exemption they intend to maintain.
The new submissions must demonstrate that the agencies have thoroughly reviewed the responsive records and considered whether information already disclosed publicly can be separated and released without exposing genuinely protected material or causing reasonably foreseeable harm.
The court also made clear that the agencies must pay particular attention to information already contained in the public record.
They may submit both public and confidential versions of their explanations where necessary.
The deadline does not mean the records must automatically be released by November 27. Rather, the agencies must provide a proposed schedule for the next stage of proceedings and stronger legal justifications for any continued withholding.
Court rejects Greenspan’s attempt to question Tinubu
The October 30 ruling also addressed several other applications filed during the case.
Judge Howell rejected Greenspan’s request to establish additional procedural safeguards governing confidential submissions made by the FBI to the court.
The judge also denied a request by non party Karl Von Batten for permission to submit an amicus brief.
Another major decision concerned Greenspan’s attempt to serve limited discovery on President Tinubu and DCI Group over alleged distributed denial of service attacks against his website.
Greenspan claimed that the attacks affected a website through which he earns personal income and publishes documents relating to the ongoing litigation.
His proposed discovery included interrogatories, requests for admission, a request for production of documents and a subpoena.
However, the judge found that the allegations were unrelated to the Freedom of Information Act dispute.
The court explained that determining who was responsible for the alleged cyberattacks would not help establish whether the FBI and DEA had conducted adequate searches or lawfully withheld the requested records.
The request to question Tinubu was therefore denied.
A related application asking the court to take judicial notice of certain information was also denied as moot.
Case continues over Tinubu and Agbele records
The latest ruling leaves the case active against the FBI and DEA over the remaining requests involving Tinubu and Agbele.
Although the court accepted the FBI’s search methods and certain attorney work product redactions, it found that the agencies had not adequately justified most of their other withholding decisions.
The FBI and DEA must now return with stronger explanations, particularly concerning information that has already been disclosed through public court records.
The ruling represents an important development in Greenspan’s long running effort to obtain the investigative files and could place further pressure on the agencies to explain why decades old information remains redacted.
For now, the court has not ordered the wholesale release of the records, nor has it made a finding of criminal wrongdoing against Tinubu.
The next major step is the November 27, 2026, deadline, when the parties must present their proposed schedule for renewed arguments and further examination of the disputed records.
