Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has formally joined the United States Department of Justice and other federal agencies in seeking additional time to respond to a motion for summary judgment in a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records sought in connection with past U.S. investigations relating to him.

Tinubu’s legal team filed a notice of joinder at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking to remain on the same timetable as the other defendants in the case.

The development places the Nigerian President directly on the procedural side of the ongoing litigation, although the request for additional time does not amount to a new criminal charge or a judicial finding that Tinubu committed any drug-related offence.

The case, Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), is before U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell.

Court records show that the litigation concerns FOIA requests for records relating to past U.S. law-enforcement investigations involving Tinubu and another individual, Abiodun Agbele.

According to the filing cited in the latest development, Tinubu, described in the court proceedings as an intervenor, joined the defendants’ request for a 10-day extension to file their response to the motion for summary judgment.

His lawyers said the purpose was to ensure that his response would remain on the same schedule as those of the other defendants.

The notice stated that the intervenor was joining the defendants’ request for the extension so that the responses could proceed according to a common timetable.

The filing was signed by Christopher W. Carmichael and Victor P. Henderson of Henderson Parks, LLC.

The request reportedly faced opposition from the plaintiff, while the defendants did not oppose the request.

However, according to a subsequent account attributed to Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a U.S.-based policy advisory and lobbying firm associated with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Judge Howell ultimately denied the request.

That means the requested 10-day extension did not automatically translate into additional time for the parties.

The underlying litigation dates back to 2023 and centres on efforts by Aaron Greenspan to obtain records from U.S. government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act.

The records sought relate to criminal investigations that Greenspan says involved Tinubu and Agbele during the early 1990s.

A U.S. federal court record describing the case says Greenspan sought disclosure from the FBI, DEA and CIA of criminal investigative documents relating to the two men.

The agencies had issued what are known as Glomar responses, meaning they declined to confirm or deny whether responsive law-enforcement records existed.

Greenspan subsequently challenged the agencies’ position in court.

The case therefore involves a dispute over access to government records and the application of FOIA exemptions, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

The case has attracted considerable political attention because the records being sought are connected to allegations concerning Tinubu’s activities in the United States in the early 1990s.

Previous U.S. court documents cited in connection with the matter refer to an investigation into a Chicago-based narcotics trafficking operation involving heroin trafficking between 1988 and 1991.

The controversy also relates to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving $460,000 held in an account bearing Tinubu’s name.

Tinubu has consistently denied allegations that he was involved in drug trafficking.

His position has been that the forfeiture proceeding was a civil in rem action concerning money, rather than a criminal prosecution against him personally.

His lawyers have also maintained that he was never arrested, indicted, arraigned or convicted of a drug-related offence in the United States.

These distinctions are important because the existence of a civil forfeiture proceeding does not, by itself, establish that the person whose name appears on an account was convicted of a criminal offence.

The history of the litigation can be traced through publicly available court documents.

In an earlier memorandum, U.S. government lawyers described the case as arising from multiple FOIA requests submitted by Greenspan to the FBI, CIA, DEA, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of State and Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service.

The government sought summary judgment in its favour while opposing Greenspan’s request for summary judgment.

The court record also confirms that the litigation concerns requests for criminal investigative documents concerning third parties, including Tinubu and Agbele.

That distinction is particularly important in reporting the latest development: Tinubu’s latest court filing concerns his participation in the procedural timetable of a FOIA lawsuit. It is not a new indictment, criminal complaint or finding of guilt.

Following the reported denial of the extension request, Von Batten-Montague-York alleged on social media that Tinubu could use the additional time to lobby U.S. officials against the release of the requested records.

The firm suggested that the Nigerian President could seek to persuade officials in Washington that disclosure of the records might harm U.S.-Nigeria relations or affect bilateral security cooperation.

It also called for scrutiny of any U.S. officials who might allegedly attempt to interfere with the judicial or FOIA process.

However, those claims are allegations by the lobbying firm and have not been independently established based on the information available for this report.

There is also no evidence in the material reviewed establishing that Tinubu actually attempted to influence U.S. officials or interfere with the court process.

The latest filing is significant because it demonstrates that Tinubu’s legal team is actively participating in the litigation as the court considers the next stage of the records-release dispute.

For the Nigerian President, the case carries political significance because information concerning his past in the United States has repeatedly featured in political debates in Nigeria, particularly since his emergence as a major political figure and eventual election as President.

For Greenspan and those seeking disclosure, the case represents an effort to compel greater transparency from U.S. government agencies over records relating to historical investigations.

For the U.S. government, meanwhile, the dispute involves competing considerations under FOIA, including public access to government records and exemptions protecting law-enforcement information and individual privacy.

Despite the political controversy surrounding the matter, the latest development should not be interpreted as evidence that the U.S. government has brought a fresh criminal case against Tinubu.

The proceeding remains a civil FOIA litigation concerning access to government records.

The underlying allegations regarding drug trafficking have been repeatedly disputed by Tinubu and his representatives.

Likewise, the fact that records are being sought does not establish that every allegation contained in those records is true.

The central legal question before the court is whether the U.S. government agencies can lawfully withhold or refuse to confirm the existence of the requested records under applicable FOIA exemptions.

The litigation is nevertheless likely to remain politically sensitive in Nigeria.

Tinubu’s political opponents have repeatedly raised questions about his history in the United States, while his supporters have argued that previous allegations have been politically weaponised and that the President has never been convicted of a drug-related crime.

The renewed attention to the case comes at a time when Nigeria’s political environment is already beginning to take shape ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Any eventual decision by the U.S. court on the disclosure of the records could therefore attract significant attention in Nigeria, particularly if previously undisclosed documents are ordered released.

For now, however, the immediate development is procedural: Tinubu has joined the U.S. government’s request for additional time in the FOIA litigation, and the reported request for a 10-day extension was subsequently denied by Judge Beryl Howell.

The substantive question of whether additional records relating to the historical investigations will ultimately become public remains before the U.S. court.