{"id":291,"date":"2025-04-13T13:05:13","date_gmt":"2025-04-13T13:05:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/james.felttouch.com\/?p=291"},"modified":"2025-04-13T13:05:15","modified_gmt":"2025-04-13T13:05:15","slug":"us-court-orders-fbi-anti-drug-agency-to-release-tinubus-records","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/james.felttouch.com\/?p=291","title":{"rendered":"US Court Orders FBI, Anti-drug Agency To Release Tinubu\u2019s Records"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Responding to a motion by Aaron Greenspan, an American who is seeking a reconsideration of an earlier ruling, Howell said protecting the information from public disclosure is \u201cneither logical nor plausible.\u201d
<\/strong>
Greenspan had accused the law enforcement agencies of violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to release within the statutory time \u201cdocuments relating to purported federal investigations into\u201d President Tinubu and one Abiodun Agbele.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tinubu was said to have forfeited $460,000 to the American government in 1993 after authorities linked the funds to proceeds of narcotics trafficking.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the Presidential Election Petition Court, the issue of Tinubu\u2019s forfeiture of the funds featured prominently when his opponents \u2013 Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi \u2013 challenged the president\u2019s eligibility to contest Nigeria\u2019s presidency.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in a unanimous decision, the election court dismissed the suits, affirming Tinubu\u2019s election.

However, on Tuesday, Judge Howell ruled partly in favour of Greenspan.
<\/strong>
The judge noted that the \u2018Glomar\u2019 responses asserted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are \u201cimproper and must be lifted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the FBI and DEA failed to show that they properly invoked the FOIA.
<\/strong>
According to Howell, since it was acknowledged that Tinubu was a subject of an investigation involving both the FBI and DEA, \u201cthe claim that the Glomar responses were necessary to protect this information from public disclosure is at this point neither logical nor plausible.\u201d
<\/strong>
Explaining further, the judge established that a FOIA requester may challenge the propriety of an agency\u2019s Glomar response in two ways: first, by \u201cchallenging the agency\u2019s assertion that confirming or denying the existence of any records would result in a cognisable harm under a FOIA exemption,\u201d and, second, showing that the agency \u201chas \u2018officially acknowledged otherwise exempt information through prior disclosure,\u201d meaning that the agency \u201chas \u2018waived its right to claim an exemption with respect to that information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, the judge said Mr Greenspan asserts both types of challenges to defendants\u2019 Glomar responses: \u201cThe plaintiffs\u2019 argument that (1) DEA has officially confirmed investigations of Agbele\u2019s involvement in the drug trafficking ring, (2) the FBI and DEA have both officially confirmed investigations of Tinubu relating to the drug trafficking ring, (3) any privacy interests implicated by the FOIA requests to the FBI and DEA for records about Tinubu are overcome by the public interest in release of such information, and (4) the CIA has officially acknowledged records responsive to plaintiff\u2019s FOIA request about Tinubu.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n
US court orders FBI, anti-drug agency to release Tinubu’s records<\/a><\/blockquote>