President Bola Tinubu has opposed an attempt by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to introduce additional documents in an ongoing United States court case seeking access to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records linked to historical investigations involving the Nigerian leader.
The objection was contained in a filing dated October 15, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Greenspan, who is pursuing the release of records relating to investigations involving Tinubu and others in the late 1980s and early 1990s, had applied on October 8 for the court to take judicial notice of additional public records.
The materials reportedly include documents relating to alleged hacking activities, criminal proceedings and media reports. Greenspan sought to use them in support of a separate request for permission to conduct limited discovery from Tinubu.
However, Tinubu’s legal team argued that the additional materials failed to establish the connection Greenspan was attempting to draw between the alleged hacking activities and the ongoing litigation.
The lawyers also challenged the timing of the application, noting that it was filed more than a week after Greenspan submitted his reply supporting the discovery request.
They further argued that the 176 pages of documents cited by Greenspan were already available and should have been included in his earlier submissions.
Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the materials should not automatically be accepted as proof of the allegations contained in them, particularly where media reports were concerned.
“News articles are not appropriate for judicial notice for the truth, content, or veracity of their claims,” the lawyers argued.
The latest objection forms part of the wider legal dispute over Greenspan’s Freedom of Information Act requests for historical investigative records held by American law enforcement agencies.
The court filing represents the position of Tinubu’s legal team on the additional materials. It does not, by itself, establish that the court has ordered the records withheld or determined the underlying allegations.
About the Author
