A United States federal court has rejected an attempt to obtain discovery from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and DCI Group in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a ruling delivered on Friday October 30 2026 denied a motion filed by Aaron Greenspan seeking limited discovery from the Nigerian President and DCI Group over alleged cyberattacks on his website.
The development was disclosed in a statement posted by Bayo Onanuga the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy on his verified X handle @aonanuga1956.
According to the statement the court held that the proposed discovery was not sufficiently relevant to the substantive issues in the FOIA litigation involving the two American federal law enforcement agencies.
The ruling effectively rejected Greenspan’s attempt to introduce the alleged cyberattacks into the proceedings limiting consideration to matters directly connected to the underlying information-disclosure dispute.
Onanuga’s post also said the court rejected Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment along with other applications connected to the litigation.
It specifically denied a separate application by Karl Von Batten a non-party to the proceedings seeking permission to submit an ‘amicus curiae’ or friend-of-the-court brief.
Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice was equally denied.
In response attorney Christopher W. Carmichael described the ruling as a reaffirmation of the legal boundaries governing FOIA proceedings.
‘The Court’s decision makes clear that this Freedom of Information Act proceeding cannot be used to pursue discovery unrelated to the legal questions before it.
‘By denying the request for discovery against President Tinubu and DCI Group the Court reinforced the importance of keeping this litigation focused on the issues properly before it’ Carmichael said.
Another attorney Oluwole Afolabi said the decisions had established important procedural limits on the scope of the litigation.
‘The Court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and rejected a separate request to introduce an amicus brief.
‘While the underlying FOIA issues remain before the Court these rulings establish important procedural boundaries and clarify which matters are appropriate for consideration in this litigation’ Afolabi said.