By Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd)
Yesterday, 20 August 2026, there was an important development in the continuing litigation in the United States over FBI records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
According to a report published today by TheCable, (report verified at the US end) the US Federal Bureau of Investigation filed an application dated 20 August asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to make an “ex parte, in camera” declaration explaining why portions of certain records concerning Tinubu should remain withheld from public disclosure.
The headline is understandably dramatic: “FBI to US court: Disclosing Tinubu’s records could endanger lives, reveal our techniques.” But what exactly does that mean?
First, some background.
The case arose from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by American researcher Aaron Greenspan, who sought records from several US agencies concerning investigations dating back to the early 1990s. TheCable reports that two of the FBI requests are particularly relevant. One sought “the entire FBI file” concerning Bola Ahmed Tinubu, while another sought FBI 302 interview records connected with a specified FBI case during the 1992–1993 period.
Initially, the FBI and some other agencies adopted what American law calls a Glomar response — essentially refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested records existed. That position did not entirely survive judicial scrutiny. In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA’s Glomar responses were improper and had to be lifted. According to TheCable’s account of the judgment, the court found that the agencies had failed to establish a sufficient privacy interest in concealing the fact that Tinubu had been a subject of a criminal investigation.
That brings us to yesterday’s development.
The FBI is now relying on several specific FOIA exemptions — 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F) — to justify withholding portions of the responsive material. Of particular interest are 7(E) and 7(F).
Put simply, 7(E) protects certain law-enforcement techniques and procedures from disclosure, while 7(F) protects information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger someone’s life or physical safety.
According to TheCable, the FBI told the court that disclosure of the withheld information could reveal “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations” and/or “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” The FBI says there is a problem: it cannot fully explain in public why these exemptions apply without potentially revealing the very information it says needs protection. Hence its request to submit an ex parte, in camera, under-seal declaration.
In ordinary English, this means: “Judge, there are things about these records that we cannot explain publicly. Allow us to show you privately why we believe they should remain secret.”
If Judge Howell agrees, the FBI says it will provide that confidential explanation by 28 August.
WHAT DOES THIS NOT MEAN?
It does not mean that the FBI has now declared President Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking.
It does not establish that the withheld records contain incriminating evidence against him.
And it certainly does not mean, as some sensational interpretations may suggest, that the FBI is saying somebody will necessarily be killed if “Tinubu’s file” is released.
FOIA exemptions of this nature can protect many things: confidential sources, witnesses, cooperating individuals, investigative techniques and other persons whose identities or safety could be compromised.
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
It means something more precise — and legally significant.
This is no longer simply a debate over whether the Tinubu records exist. The litigation has moved into the question of what information in responsive records can lawfully be withheld from the public and why.
The FBI is effectively telling the court: Yes we have withheld certain information. Yes We have legal grounds for withholding it. Some of those grounds are themselves too sensitive to explain publicly. We therefore want to explain them privately to the judge.
It is now up to the judge who will ultimately have to determine whether those claims are justified.
That distinction is crucial.
The existence of investigative records is not the same thing as proof of criminal wrongdoing. Equally, the invocation of sensitive law-enforcement exemptions should not simply be dismissed as meaningless bureaucratic language.
SO, WHAT SHOULD WE WATCH NEXT?
Not the political commentary from either side.
Watch Judge Beryl Howell.
If she permits the private submission, she will be placed in the unusual position of seeing an explanation that the public — and potentially the plaintiff — cannot see.
More importantly, watch what the court subsequently decides about which records must be released, which may be redacted, and which the FBI may continue to withhold altogether.
That is where the real substance of this matter lies.
For now, therefore, both extremes should be avoided:
1. Saying : “The FBI has proved Tinubu is guilty” — No.
2. “There is absolutely nothing of significance here” — We cannot responsibly say that either.
The fit and proper position for any person interested in this case is simpler:
There are FBI records at issue. A US federal judge is scrutinising the government’s reasons for withholding portions of them. The FBI says some of those reasons involve protection of investigative methods and potentially the safety of individuals.
What those protected portions actually contain remains unknown to the public.
And that is precisely why the next decision of the court matters.
Source: TheCable, “FBI to US court: Disclosing Tinubu’s records could endanger lives, reveal our techniques,” 21 August 2026.
* Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd) is a Security & Defence Analyst/Conflict Security & Development Consult Ltd