By Ademola Adekusibe
A United States federal court has rejected a request by Aaron Greenspan to obtain evidence from Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and lobbying firm DCI Group over alleged cyberattacks on Greenspan’s website, ruling that the proposed inquiry has no sufficient connection to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute before it.
In a memorandum opinion delivered on October 30, 2026, United States District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District Court for the District of Columbia denied Greenspan’s application for limited discovery from Tinubu and DCI Group. The court held that investigating the source of the alleged attacks would not assist in determining whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had properly searched for and processed records requested under FOIA.
The court also rejected an application by non-party Karl Von Batten to file an amicus curiae brief, denied Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice, and refused Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment. However, the ruling did not bring the underlying records dispute to an end. The court left important questions concerning the agencies’ withholding and redaction of documents unresolved.
The development was announced by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, who referenced a statement issued in Washington, D.C., on October 30.
How the FOIA Case Began
The case dates back to 2022 and 2023, when Greenspan submitted a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act to six United States federal agencies, including the FBI and DEA. He sought records connected to a federal investigation into a Chicago-based money-laundering and heroin-trafficking operation that was active during the early 1990s.
The requests specifically named Tinubu, who is now Nigeria’s President, and Abiodun Agbele among individuals whose records Greenspan wanted the agencies to search for and disclose.
The litigation followed after the agencies initially declined to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed. This position, known in American legal practice as a “Glomar response”, allows an agency to refuse to acknowledge the existence or non-existence of records where doing so could itself disclose information protected by law.
Greenspan challenged those responses in court, arguing that publicly available records from an earlier civil forfeiture proceeding had already acknowledged the investigation and therefore prevented the agencies from relying on that blanket refusal.
One of the documents at the centre of the argument was a 1993 civil forfeiture complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice in connection with $460,000 held in a bank account in Tinubu’s name. An affidavit attached to the complaint discussed the investigation and alleged that funds in certain accounts controlled by Tinubu were connected to financial transactions that violated federal money-laundering laws and represented proceeds of drug trafficking.
These were allegations contained in the historical court filings, not a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
The Earlier Court Decision That Changed the Case
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled against the FBI and DEA’s use of Glomar responses in relation to the relevant requests. The court found that the agencies could not continue refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records when the investigation had already been publicly acknowledged through earlier government court filings.
That decision did not order the agencies to release every document in their possession. Instead, it directed them to search for and produce records responsive to Greenspan’s requests, subject to the exemptions and protections recognised under FOIA.
The FBI and DEA subsequently processed hundreds of pages of documents. However, substantial portions were withheld or released with redactions, prompting another round of legal arguments over whether the agencies had properly justified their decisions.
According to the October 30 memorandum, the FBI processed 399 pages, releasing 30 pages in full, withholding 63 pages in full and withholding portions of another 247 pages. The remaining 59 pages were withheld as duplicates of other processed records.
The DEA processed 240 pages. None was released in full. The agency withheld 172 pages in full and portions of other records, while identifying four pages as non-responsive.
A significant point noted in the court’s opinion was that the name “Tinubu” did not appear in any of the records released by either agency. The court also observed that the FBI had released a redacted version of an affidavit that had previously appeared without redactions in public court filings.
These issues formed part of Greenspan’s challenge to the agencies’ reliance on FOIA exemptions to withhold information.
Why the Court Rejected the Request Against Tinubu and DCI Group
While the records dispute was progressing, Greenspan filed a separate application seeking permission to obtain limited discovery from Tinubu and DCI Group concerning distributed denial-of-service attacks, commonly known as DDoS attacks, allegedly directed at his website.
The proposed discovery included interrogatories, requests for admission and a request for documents. Greenspan argued that the attacks had affected his website, which he used to publish records relating to the litigation, and sought information that could help identify their source.
Importantly, the court noted that Greenspan had not accused Tinubu of being responsible for the alleged attacks. His argument was that the incidents could indicate that someone was monitoring the case and had an interest in limiting public access to related materials.
Judge Howell nevertheless found that the proposed inquiry did not meet the legal relevance and proportionality requirements for discovery.
The court explained that the central questions in a FOIA lawsuit concern the conduct of the government agencies responsible for searching for, processing and withholding records. The proposed discovery, however, was not directed at the FBI or DEA and did not concern the adequacy of their searches or their decisions to withhold documents.
In the court’s assessment, determining who was behind the alleged attacks on Greenspan’s website would not help resolve whether the FBI and DEA had complied with their obligations under FOIA.
The judge therefore concluded that the request had no sufficient relevance to the claims before the court and denied permission for the proposed discovery.
The court also rejected Greenspan’s request for judicial notice of more than 100 pages of records. Since that application had been submitted solely to support the discovery request, and the court’s decision on discovery did not depend on those materials, the request was denied as moot.
The ruling did not establish who was responsible for the alleged cyberattacks. It also made no finding that Tinubu or DCI Group had participated in them.
Court Also Rejects Amicus Brief and Greenspan’s Summary Judgment Motion
Another application considered in the October 30 ruling was filed by Karl Von Batten, a non-party to the litigation, who sought permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Greenspan.
An amicus curiae brief is a submission made by an individual or organisation that is not directly a party to a case but seeks to provide the court with additional information, legal arguments or perspectives that may assist its consideration of the issues.
The court declined to grant permission for the proposed brief. It also denied Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment, which had asked the court to rule in his favour on the outstanding FOIA claims without proceeding to trial.
However, the outcome of the summary judgment applications requires a closer look. While Greenspan’s motion was denied, the court did not grant the government agencies a complete victory. It granted the FBI summary judgment on the adequacy of its search and its reliance on FOIA Exemption 5, but denied the remainder of the defendants’ cross-motion.
That distinction is significant because it means the agencies did not obtain a blanket judicial approval for all the information they had withheld.
What the Court Said About the Outstanding Records
Beyond the rejected discovery applications, the memorandum contains important findings concerning the FBI and DEA’s handling of the requested documents.
The court examined the agencies’ reliance on several FOIA exemptions, including provisions protecting personal privacy, law-enforcement information, confidential sources and certain government records.
It found that the FBI had properly relied on some exemptions, including Exemption 5, which protects certain inter-agency or intra-agency communications covered by recognised legal privileges.
However, the court also identified shortcomings in the agencies’ explanations for withholding other records.
In particular, the judge found that the FBI had not sufficiently demonstrated that all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information connected to previously public records had been released. The DEA, meanwhile, had not adequately justified some of its Exemption 3 withholdings or demonstrated that publicly disclosed information could not reasonably be separated and released.
The court therefore declined to grant the agencies summary judgment on those outstanding withholding issues.
It directed them to prepare supplemental declarations supporting any continued withholding of responsive records and to propose an expedited briefing schedule after consulting with Greenspan.
This means the FBI and DEA may still have to provide further explanations to justify withholding particular information. The court has not ordered the immediate release of every disputed document, but neither has it accepted all the agencies’ reasons for keeping the records from public disclosure.
What the Ruling Means for Tinubu and the FOIA Lawsuit
The October 30 decision addresses two separate aspects of the litigation that should not be confused.
First, the court rejected Greenspan’s attempt to introduce an inquiry into alleged cyberattacks on his website through discovery against Tinubu and DCI Group. It found that the proposed inquiry was unrelated to the legal questions governing the FOIA dispute.
Second, the court continued its examination of whether the FBI and DEA had properly complied with their obligations to search for and disclose responsive records. On that issue, the ruling left significant matters unresolved and required the agencies to provide further support for certain withholdings.
Consequently, the decision should not be interpreted as a final ruling on whether all records sought by Greenspan must be released. Nor does the rejection of the discovery request amount to a judicial determination on the historical allegations contained in the 1993 forfeiture proceedings.
The court’s decision also does not constitute a finding that Tinubu committed a drug-related offence. The proceedings concern access to government records under American freedom-of-information law, and the court’s immediate task is to determine whether the agencies have lawfully handled the requests.
For now, the request for evidence from Tinubu and DCI Group has been rejected, while the dispute over the FBI and DEA records remains active. The next stage will depend on the supplemental explanations the agencies are required to provide and the court’s subsequent consideration of whether their remaining withholdings satisfy FOIA requirements.