Tinubu asks US court to reject fresh bid to introduce records in FBI, DEA files lawsuit

President Bola Tinubu has asked a United States federal court to dismiss a fresh application by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan seeking to introduce additional records in a legal battle over access to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) files relating to a past narcotics investigation.

The objection, contained in a court filing dated October 15, 2026, was submitted before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Greenspan is pursuing the release of records connected with investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Tinubu's legal team opposed Greenspan's request for the court to take judicial notice of additional public records concerning alleged hacking activities, criminal proceedings and media reports, arguing that the materials did not establish the connection the activist was seeking to make with the ongoing proceedings.

The development represents another procedural contest in the lawsuit, which centres on Greenspan's efforts to obtain government records and his separate request for permission to conduct limited discovery from the Nigerian President.

According to the court documents, Greenspan filed his application on October 8, seeking to bring the additional materials before the court in support of his discovery request.

Tinubu's lawyers, however, challenged both the relevance of the documents and the timing of the application, urging the court not to grant the activist's request.

Lawyers Question Relevance of Additional Records

In their objection, Tinubu's lawyers argued that the materials presented by Greenspan did not establish the relationship he was attempting to draw between the alleged hacking activities and the legal issues before the court.

The lawyers maintained that the existence of publicly available records did not, in itself, demonstrate their relevance to the specific questions the court was being asked to determine.

They also challenged Greenspan's reliance on reports and other publicly accessible materials, arguing that their availability did not make the claims contained in them automatically admissible or establish their accuracy.

The legal team specifically objected to the use of media reports as a basis for judicial notice of the truth of allegations contained in those publications.

“News articles are not appropriate for judicial notice for the truth, content, or veracity of their claims,” the lawyers argued.

The position reflects a distinction in legal proceedings between the existence of a published report and the truth of the assertions contained in it. A court may be able to recognise that a report was published without necessarily accepting its allegations as established facts.

Tinubu's lawyers are therefore asking the court to assess Greenspan's application within the applicable legal standards rather than treat the submission of additional documents as sufficient grounds for accepting the claims they contain.

Tinubu's Team Challenges Timing of Application

Beyond questioning the relevance of the materials, the President's legal team also raised concerns about when Greenspan filed his application.

The lawyers argued that the request came more than a week after the activist had submitted his reply in support of his application for limited discovery.

They further contended that the 176 pages of additional materials cited by Greenspan were already available to him and could have been included in his earlier court submissions.

According to the objection, the activist had not provided a sufficient basis for introducing the documents at that stage of the proceedings.

The argument places the timing of the application alongside the substantive question of whether the proposed materials would assist the court in determining the issues before it.

In litigation, parties are generally expected to comply with procedural requirements and present relevant supporting materials at the appropriate stages. Whether a court permits additional submissions, however, depends on the applicable rules and the circumstances of the particular case.

The court will have to determine whether Greenspan's request meets the requirements for judicial notice and whether the additional records should be considered in connection with his separate discovery application.

Dispute Centres On Access To FBI, Dea Files

Greenspan's lawsuit seeks access to FBI and DEA records relating to investigations involving Tinubu and others during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The case has drawn attention because of the historical allegations associated with the records and the political significance of the person to whom they relate.

However, the immediate dispute described in the latest filing concerns the procedure for introducing additional materials and the extent to which those materials may support Greenspan's request to obtain further information from Tinubu.

The distinction is important because a request for government records, an application to conduct discovery and a determination of the truth of allegations are separate legal questions.

The fact that a lawsuit seeks access to investigative files does not, by itself, establish the allegations that may be associated with those files. Equally, a party's objection to the introduction of documents does not, on its own, resolve the underlying dispute over access to government records.

The latest filing therefore does not amount to a final determination of the broader questions surrounding the requested FBI and DEA materials.

What The Court Must Determine

At the centre of the latest application are questions about the relevance of Greenspan's additional records, the appropriateness of judicial notice and whether the materials can properly support his request for limited discovery.

Judicial notice allows a court to recognise certain facts without requiring the party relying on them to establish those facts through the usual evidentiary process. Its application is governed by legal standards, and it does not provide a blanket mechanism for converting every public document or media report into proof of the assertions contained in it.

Greenspan's application seeks to use the additional records to strengthen his separate request for permission to conduct limited discovery from Tinubu. The President's lawyers, in response, contend that the materials do not establish the necessary connection and should not be accepted in the manner proposed.

The court's decision on the application could determine whether the additional documents form part of the material considered in relation to the discovery request. It would not necessarily settle the underlying dispute over access to the government records.

As of the date of Tinubu's October 15 filing, the information provided in the court documents does not establish that the judge has ruled on the latest application.

The next significant development will be the court's consideration of the competing arguments and any subsequent decision on Greenspan's request.

For now, the dispute remains a legal contest over the handling of evidence and the scope of further proceedings in a lawsuit seeking access to historical FBI and DEA records.