A United States federal court has rejected an attempt to obtain discovery from President Bola 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 knocked out a motion filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan seeking limited discovery from the Nigerian President and DCI Group over alleged cyber attacks on his website.
A ‘Discovery Request’ is a legal procedure where organizations are required to identify and disclose relevant data in response to a judicial order or legal.
The court ruled that the discovery was not sufficiently relevant to the substantive issues in the FOIA litigation which centres on the disclosure of American law enforcement records relating to investigations conducted in the early 1990s.
The development was disclosed in a statement posted by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga on his verified X handle @aonanuga1956.
According to Onanuga the court declared that Greenspan’s allegations on cyber attacks fell outside the scope of the records disclosure dispute involving the FBI and DEA.
The court also turned down Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and denied a separate application by Karl Von Batten a nonparty to the proceedings seeking permission to submit an amicus curiae or friend-of-the-court brief.
Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice was similarly denied.
Reacting to the ruling attorney Christopher W. Carmichael described the decision 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’ he said.
He added: ‘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.’
The latest ruling represents another development in a legal dispute that began in June 2023 when Greenspan instituted proceedings against several United States government agencies after seeking access to records concerning Tinubu and other individuals linked to investigations conducted more than three decades ago.
Greenspan had submitted 12 FOIA requests between 2022 and 2023 to federal agencies including the FBI DEA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Department of State and Executive Office for United States Attorneys.
The controversy also has its roots in a 1993 civil forfeiture case involving approximately $460000 connected with bank accounts associated with Tinubu.
The forfeiture proceedings which have featured prominently in arguments before the Washington court do not constitute a criminal conviction of the Nigerian President who has consistently denied criminal wrongdoing.
The FOIA litigation subsequently assumed greater significance on April 8 2025 when United States District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their earlier refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to Tinubu.
The position known in American information disclosure law as a Glomar response allows government agencies in specified circumstances to neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of requested records.
However Judge Howell held that previously disclosed official records undermined the agencies’ justification for maintaining that position.
She consequently directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process responsive records releasing those not protected by applicable statutory exemptions.
The court however upheld the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to Greenspan’s request while other agencies were subsequently removed from the outstanding dispute.
Following the April 2025 decision the FBI and DEA commenced processing records although disagreements subsequently emerged over the extent of permissible redactions and the withholding of sensitive information.
Court records indicate that the FBI processed 399 pages releasing some in full or in part while the DEA processed another 240 pages with substantial portions withheld under various FOIA exemptions.
The dispute intensified in August and September 2026 when Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought further disclosure of documents relating to the historical investigations.
Tinubu who had been admitted into the proceedings as an intervenor to protect his legal interests opposed the unrestricted release of certain records.
His legal team comprising Carmichael Victor P. Henderson and Afolabi argued that disclosure of protected investigative materials could infringe privacy rights and compromise information covered by exemptions under American law.
The FBI and DEA similarly maintained that some documents contained privileged communications sensitive investigative techniques information concerning confidential sources and material protected by law.
The Presidency had also previously clarified that the proceedings were strictly a civil records disclosure dispute and not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
It maintained that the release or withholding of documents under FOIA did not by itself establish criminal liability.
In Friday’s latest judgment Judge Howell granted the FBI summary judgment on the adequacy of its records search and its withholding of certain materials under FOIA Exemption 5 but rejected the remaining aspects of the federal agencies’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
The court directed the agencies to provide additional declarations supporting any continued withholding of disputed records and to propose an expedited briefing schedule after consulting Greenspan.
The court therefore left unresolved important questions surrounding the justification for withholding or redacting some of the requested information.
The decision did not order the immediate release of additional records nor did it bring the underlying FOIA litigation to a close.
Consequently while Greenspan’s separate attempt to obtain discovery from Tinubu and DCI Group has been rejected the substantive dispute over the disclosure of FBI and DEA records remains before the American court.