FBI chooses not to provide Tinubu’s records

The prospect of releasing any records or information about President Bola Tinubu to the public has been closed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States.

In a response to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia by Aaron Greenspan, who is attempting to order the release of certain alleged records and information regarding Tinubu and “Mueez Adegboyega Akande (deceased as of 11/16/2022),” the FBI made its stance on the matter known.

The October 39 response relates to Greenspan’s request that the court review its October 23 decision that denied his emergency move to reveal the records and data he requested in his substantive Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (FOIA).

“In plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, he argues that the court is wrong because FOIA exemptions had already been largely, or at least partially, overcome according to the representations by defendants in their September 11, 2023 Joint Status Repost,” according to the court document titled “Defendants’ response to plaintiff’s for reconsideration.”

“Plaintiff misunderstands the Joint Status Report completely. No FOIA exemption has been acknowledged by any of the parties.

READ ALSO: Tinubu gives stern warning to government officials at the FEC meeting

“Regarding the steps that some defendants consented to do by the end of October, the FBI declared that it will divulge information on the two FOIA requests that were made in search of information about other people, not Tinubu.

Regarding the Tinubu requests, the FBI replied that Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) Glomar applied, but it did not affirm or refute the existence of the records that were requested.

The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and the State have indicated that they plan to deliver preliminary replies, not necessarily documentation.

“The FBI, State, and EOUSA will adhere to the statements they made in the Joint Status Report, barring any unanticipated events.

Regarding irreversible harm, the plaintiff now acknowledges that “it is likely that this injury has already transpired” and makes no attempt to prove or even argue that the public interest commands a higher priority than privacy concerns or that the equity supports his position.

“Defendants restate their opposition to the plaintiff’s interpretation of the Joint Status Report, which was submitted on September 11, 2023.

“Plaintiff misunderstands the Joint Status Report completely. No FOIA exemption has been acknowledged by any of the parties.

“Regarding the steps that some defendants consented to do by the end of October, the FBI declared that it will divulge information on the two FOIA requests that were made in search of information about other people, not Tinubu.

Regarding the Tinubu requests, the FBI replied that Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) Glomar applied, but it did not affirm or refute the existence of the records that were requested.

The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and the State have indicated that they plan to deliver preliminary replies, not necessarily documentation.

“The FBI, State, and EOUSA will adhere to the statements they made in the Joint Status Report, barring any unanticipated events.

Regarding irreversible harm, the plaintiff now acknowledges that “it is likely that this injury has already transpired” and makes no attempt to prove or even argue that the public interest commands a higher priority than privacy concerns or that the equity supports his position.

“Defendants restate their opposition to the plaintiff’s interpretation of the Joint Status Report, which was submitted on September 11, 2023.

Plaintiff claims that “defendants acknowledged that plaintiff’s FOIA requests were valid and that many of their previous, incorrect denials and objections were waived or overturned.”

According to the plaintiff, the defendants “made existing promises to produce documents.”

The FBI, which will provide materials unrelated to Tinubu, is the only entity that has acknowledged responsive documents that are not excluded from production requirements and will be provided. There have been no waived exemptions.

“The plaintiff’s move for reconsideration should be denied by the court for these reasons.”

Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Greenspan filed a civil lawsuit in June of this year against the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State (DOS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The suit was filed under the number 23-1816.

READ ALSO: US court rejects application to order FBI, CIA, and IRS to reveal President Tinubu’s records

He claimed that by “failing to issue determinations within the statutory deadline,” “failing] to conduct reasonable searches for records,” and “failing to produce records responsive to” his FOIA requests, the defendants—EOUSA, DOS, FBI, IRS, DEA, and the CIA—had violated the Freedom of Information Act.

“Records from the Northern District of Illinois and/or Northern District of Indiana involving charging decisions for the following individuals – Bola Ahmed Tinubu (President of Nigeria as of 2/2023)” and “Mueez Adegboyega Akande (deceased as of 11/16/2022)” were the subjects of a FOIA request that Greenspan had made to the EOUSA.

Tinubu’s triumph in the most recent presidential election and rejected Atiku and Obi’s appeals.

Among other things, he informed the court that the reason he was asking for the documents to be released so quickly—before the October 31 hearing—was that on Monday, October 23, 2023, “the Nigerian Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a judicial tribunal’s decision confirming Mr. Tinubu as President of Nigeria.”

Greenspan asserted that the Nigerian Supreme Court purposefully pushed up the hearing on Atiku and Obi’s appeals to yesterday in order to invalidate his lawsuit in the US court, arguing that the materials he sought “would likely be directly relevant to the foreign proceedings in Nigeria.”

Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on October 23, holding among other things that Greenspan had not met the necessary requirements in his emergency hearing application, which he had filed on October 20, to be granted his request for a temporary remedy.

According to Judge Howell, Greenspan also failed to prove that he has a good chance of winning on the merits, that denying him the preliminary relief he requested would cause him irreversible harm, that the odds are in his favour, or that the relief he is seeking is in the public interest.

The judge additionally declared that “neither a preliminary injunction nor a temporary restraining order is appropriate in this case,” noting that Greenspan has not proven the existence of the alleged papers and information he wants the court to require the defendants to provide.

“The balance of equities militates strongly in favour of denying this emergency motion given that the FOIA request is for records that, if any exist, may be of a highly sensitive and private nature, and that the subject of those documents – Bola A. Tinubu – has had no opportunity to protect his privacy interests in any such records.”

According to his position, the plaintiff in such a case is required by law to demonstrate that the case has a reasonable chance of success.

Judge Howell continued, saying, “The plaintiff is requesting information related to alleged federal investigations of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of Nigeria, in his underlying FOIA request and complaint.

As previously mentioned, EOUSA initially rejected the plaintiff’s FOIA request by citing FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(c), which safeguard data that would be an unjustified invasion of privacy as well as data gathered for law enforcement that might be an unjustified invasion of a third party’s privacy.

The plaintiff hasn’t even tried to explain how his motion might get beyond those exclusions and have a chance of succeeding on its own. It is strongly recommended to refuse his emergency motion because he neglected to address this crucial point.

The plaintiff failed to prove that, rather than just a possible or hypothetical harm, he would actually suffer an actual, irreversible harm if the relief he requested was denied, according to the judge’s findings.

The plaintiff “falls far short of satisfying this standard,” he continued. In the absence of an order, the plaintiff has not provided the court with any indication of a real, tangible threat that he faces. Plaintiff specifies no harm he will experience that can be connected in any manner to the relief sought in this emergency motion, despite the fact that his emergency move indicates that a hearing before the Nigerian Supreme Court is set to take place in the next few days.

“If plaintiff’s emergency motion is granted, it would effectively enable him to get priority over other requests that are judged to be as urgent under the FOIA’s expedition guidelines. Thus, when weighing the pros and drawbacks of issuing a preliminary injunction, it is important to take into account the inherent trade-offs associated with requiring an agency to release records in response to a particular FOIA request before those of others. These trade-offs strongly favour refusing such injunctive relief.

“The plaintiff has not indicated to the court that the public interest would be served by granting his petition or that the odds are in his favour. The plaintiff’s emergency motion for a hearing to force prompt document production is now refused, the judge said, for the reasons stated above.

In the meantime, in order to defend President Tinubu in the lawsuit, the President’s attorneys have filed an application with the court asking to be added as a party.

(Mission)