American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the FBI, DEA and Executive Office for US Attorneys to release without redaction records relating to a 1990s narcotics investigation that he says identified Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a subject.
Greenspan, an American researcher, IT expert and founder of the legal transparency platform PlainSite, made the request in a series of filings in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the US agencies.
The filings, including a reply and opposition memorandum, amended statement of material facts, statement of genuine issues, supplemental declaration with 14 exhibits and proposed order, were filed on September 9, 2026, in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, before US District Judge Beryl A. Howell.
The lawsuit seeks records concerning historical US law-enforcement investigations involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele. It is a civil FOIA dispute over government records, not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
According to Greenspan’s latest filings, the case has generated “thousands of pages of production, and two rounds of summary judgment briefing.” He claims, however, that the defendants “still have not produced a single page containing the name ‘Tinubu.'”
Greenspan says he is not Nigerian, has “never lived in or traveled to Nigeria,” and has “no family, business, property, or financial ties there.”
According to Sahara Reporters, Greenspan’s filings centre on what they describe as a joint FBI, DEA and IRS investigation involving Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Akande, Abiodun Agbele and Tinubu.
According to his amended statement of material facts, Assistant US Attorney Marsha A. McClellan filed a verified complaint on July 26, 1993, in Northern District of Illinois Case No. 1:93-cv-04483. The complaint incorporated an affidavit by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss.
Greenspan says the Moss affidavit “described in writing a joint FBI/DEA/IRS investigation into Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the owner of many of the bank accounts named as defendants in that civil forfeiture case.”
He further argues that the US Department of Justice had publicly identified Tinubu as a subject of the investigation in
According to the filing, “USDOJ officially disclosed that Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the subject of a joint FBI/DEA/IRS investigation, foreclosing and waiving any of those agencies’ ability to now issue a Glomar response.”
A Glomar response allows an agency to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
Greenspan also relies on an October 4, 1993, decree of forfeiture signed by Judge John A. Nordberg. The decree states that “[o]wnership interests in the funds in these defendant accounts have been asserted on behalf of Bola A. Tinubu, K.O. Tinubu (individually and on behalf of the Tinubu Family) and Alhaji Mogaji.”
It ordered $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name forfeited to the United States as “proceeds of narcotics trafficking or . . . involved in financial transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.”
The forfeiture proceeding was a civil case. The court records cited by Greenspan show that the United States and the individual claimants agreed to settle and compromise the action; they do not establish a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
Greenspan’s filings also refer to the related criminal prosecution of Lee Andrew Edwards in the Northern District
Edwards was convicted of operating a heroin-trafficking organisation in Gary, Indiana, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
According to a transcript filed by Greenspan from the National Archives, DEA Special Agent Vincent Balbo testified during a sentencing hearing that Abiodun Agbele had supplied heroin to Edwards’ organisation and that the drugs were sourced from Nigeria.
Balbo also testified that Agbele had been arrested and indicted.
Greenspan says, however, that searches of the federal court records system, PACER, have not located a criminal case against anyone named Abiodun Agbele. He argues that this raises the possibility that related records or charges remain sealed.
The filings also identify FBI special agents Karen Pertuso and Robert Pertuso as investigators involved in monitoring wiretaps during the Edwards investigation.
Greenspan separately cites a 2004 Washington Post report concerning a later and unrelated investigation into FBI conduct in Detroit involving the Pertusos. His filings do not establish a connection between that controversy and the Tinubu-related investigation.
Another issue raised by Greenspan concerns the third claimant identified in the 1993 forfeiture case as “Alhaji Mogati” or “Alhaji Mogaji.”
His filing cites a Wikipedia entry identifying Abibatu Mogaji, Tinubu’s mother, as a person who held the honorific and died in 2013.
One of the sources cited by that Wikipedia entry is a June 15, 2013, SaharaReporters report titled “Mother of Former Gov. Bola Tinubu Is Dead: Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji Was 96 Years Old.”
Greenspan included the material as part of his argument concerning the identity of the person identified as “Alhaji Mogaji” in the 1993 records.
Greenspan’s reply also challenges what he calls defendants’ “unreliable” responses to his statement of material facts.
On the death of Mueez Adegboyega Akande, Greenspan states that his death “has been confirmed by the United States Department of Justice.”
He says defendants responded: “Deny.”
Greenspan cites a May 4, 2023, letter from Matthew W. Hurd, Chief of the Administrative Appeals Staff at the USDOJ Office of Information Policy, which states:
“I am remanding your request, in part, to EOUSA for a search for records concerning Mueez Adegboyega Akande. Please be advised that, as a matter of administrative discretion, this Office located sufficient proof of death.”
Greenspan also disputes defendants’ objections to documents and hyperlinks cited in his filings.
He says defendants claimed that “no document is identified” or that they “do not have [a] copy of the referenced document,” even though, according to him, the documents were attached to his declaration and served on the defendants.
On hyperlinks that defendants said were not working, Greenspan wrote: “Both objections appear to be artifacts of Defendants’ own botched transcriptions.”
He says the defendants’ reproduction of the links omitted hyphens, changing “head-of-detroit-office” to “head-of-detroitoffice” and “nigeria-meets” to “nigeriameets.”
A major issue before the court is whether privacy exemptions under FOIA permit the government to withhold or redact the records.
Greenspan argues that Tinubu “lacks a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
He cites Judge Howell’s April 8, 2025 ruling, which he says found that “defendants failed to show that any privacy interest Tinubu may have outweighs the public interest in release of responsive records.”
Greenspan also addresses an October 15, 2025 Minute Order denying his motion to compel and Tinubu’s motion concerning FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). According to Greenspan, both motions were denied as premature because production was incomplete and the agencies had not yet provided the required exemption-specific justifications.
“The Court did not hold that its April 2025 findings carry no weight,” Greenspan wrote. “It held that the exemption-specific analysis was not yet ripe because production was incomplete and no agency justification had been submitted. Both conditions are now satisfied.”
Greenspan further argues that Tinubu’s status as Nigeria’s president reduces the weight of his privacy claim.
He states: “Intervenor holds the highest office there is in Nigeria. The conduct recorded – laundering the proceeds of a heroin distribution ring using bank accounts worldwide in his name and his family members’ names, as alleged in the USDOJ’s own verified complaint – is grave.”
That is Greenspan’s characterisation of the records and allegations; the court has not found Tinubu criminally liable in the forfeiture case.
Greenspan also cites an FBI declaration stating: “It is also the FBI’s policy to release names of high-ranking FBI officials as well as individuals in public positions, as they have diminished privacy rights while acting in their official capacity,” and: “[t]his policy was applied to the individual’s position at the time of the document(s), and not the present.”
Greenspan disputes Tinubu’s position in ECF No. 98 that “Intervenor was not a public official in 1993.”
He cites the Congressional Record of November 18, 1993, which he says reproduced a news report describing Tinubu as “Senator Bola Tinubu” and “the Social Democratic Party senator.”
He also cites August 18, 1993 reports in The Herald of Glasgow, The Irish Times and The Dallas Morning News, which referred to Tinubu as a senator.
Greenspan further relies on a biography of Tinubu published on the website of the Embassy of Nigeria in Tel Aviv. The biography states that Tinubu “returned to Nigeria in the early 1990s and was employed by Mobil Nigeria as an accountant, before entering politics as a Lagos West senatorial candidate in 1992 under the banner of the Social Democratic Party,” and that “[i]n 1992, he was elected to the Senate.”
Sealed Records and Grand Jury Testimony
Greenspan argues that publicly available records undermine any suggestion that his request for further records is based merely on speculation.
He cites the sworn testimony of former DEA agent Vincent Balbo in United States v. Edwards. When asked whether he “also participate[d] in the indictment and arrest of Abiodun Agbele,” Balbo answered: “Yes sir, I did.”
Greenspan says the testimony was filed on the public docket as an attachment to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Document No. 778, on March 14, 1996.
He also cites a March 9, 1993 statement by Assistant US Attorney Daniel L. Bella before Judge Rudy Lozano concerning grand jury transcripts.
Bella said: “Some of the other defense attorneys requested or inquired regarding Grand Jury transcripts of witnesses Karen Pertuso, Vincent Balbo, with regard to Grand Jury proceedings that did not lead to the indictment of this case, but led to the indictments of other defendants who were at one point or another somehow connected with Mr. Edwards.”
Bella added: “I pulled those Grand Jury transcripts; I do not believe they had a connection to this case. I’ve read through them… However, I do have them in our offices here in Hammond and defense counsel are welcome to examine those transcripts and to obtain copies if necessary.”
Greenspan argues that the references support his request for records concerning related prosecutions and grand jury proceedings.
He also cites a PACER Case Locator search receipt dated September 6, 2026, which he says “returned no results” for a criminal case against Abiodun Agbele.
Greenspan is asking Judge Howell to order the agencies to provide fuller disclosure of the records, including material he says has already been publicly acknowledged or disclosed for decades.
The litigation remains pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Leave a Reply