Tinubu’s Lawyers Admit Errors in US Court Filing, Seek Amendment

Spread the love

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s legal team has acknowledged errors in an earlier filing before a United States federal court and requested permission to submit a corrected response in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute involving American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.

The lawyers explained that the mistakes concerned references to events in 1993, Tinubu’s public office and a comparison involving student enrolment. They maintained that the corrections would not alter their substantive legal arguments.

The request was submitted on October 1, 2026, to the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where Greenspan is pursuing access to records held by American government agencies.

Key Takeaways

Tinubu’s lawyers acknowledged two errors in their previous court filing and requested permission to submit an amended response.
The mistakes involved references to 1993, Tinubu’s public office and the timing of a student-enrolment event.
The legal team maintained that the corrections would not change its arguments concerning Tinubu’s privacy rights.
Aaron Greenspan indicated that he did not oppose the proposed correction, according to the filing.
The documents described in the report do not establish that the judge has approved the amendment.

Tinubu’s Lawyers Ask US Court to Replace Earlier Filing

The amendment request concerns an earlier response submitted by Tinubu’s lawyers to Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment in the case titled Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).

In their latest motion, the lawyers sought permission to replace the previous submission, identified as Document 98, after discovering inaccuracies in Part 1.c of the response.

The legal team attributed the mistakes to the drafting and revision process, explaining that they were neither intentional nor identified before the document was filed.

The lawyers also acknowledged that Greenspan subsequently drew attention to the inaccuracies in his reply.

According to the motion, the proposed amendment is intended to correct those errors while preserving the legal arguments already presented to the court.

What Errors Did Tinubu’s Lawyers Admit?

The legal team identified two separate mistakes involving the chronology of past events and the way those events were presented in its earlier submission.

The first concerned references to 1993 and Tinubu’s public office.

The lawyers explained that the original argument was intended to establish that the investigative events under discussion, which occurred between 1988 and 1992, predated Tinubu’s assumption of office as President of Nigeria by several decades.

However, they acknowledged that the argument had been expressed inadequately and incorrectly in relation to the reference to public office and the year 1993.

The second mistake involved a comparison between the age of the investigative records and a student-enrolment event.

According to the lawyers, the student-enrolment event actually occurred before the investigative events under discussion, making the comparison chronologically inaccurate.

Both mistakes were attributed to errors made during the preparation and revision of the court document.

The legal team stated that the inaccuracies were unintended and had not been corrected before the original response was submitted.

Why the Lawyers Say the Corrections Will Not Change Their Argument

Despite acknowledging the errors, Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the proposed amendments would not affect the substance of their response to Greenspan’s request for additional government records.

Their central argument remains that Tinubu retains privacy interests in records concerning events that occurred decades before he became Nigeria’s President.

The legal team contends that assuming public office does not automatically eliminate the privacy protections that may apply to historical investigative information.

Consequently, the amended response is intended to correct the disputed references without changing the position previously presented to the court.

The lawyers also disclosed that they had discussed the proposed corrections with Greenspan and his legal representatives before filing the amendment request.

According to the motion, Greenspan indicated that he did not oppose the correction.

The legal team subsequently asked the court to permit the amended response to replace Document 98.

What Is the Tinubu FOIA Case About?

The court dispute arose from efforts by Aaron Greenspan, an American transparency activist, to obtain records concerning Tinubu and other individuals from United States government agencies.

Greenspan is seeking access to information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that allows members of the public to request records from government agencies, subject to applicable legal exemptions.

The proceedings involve requests for investigative records held by agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The records sought concern investigative events dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Greenspan has also pursued documents connected to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.

The ongoing litigation concerns access to government records and the legal grounds for withholding or redacting certain information.

Importantly, the FOIA proceedings are a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal prosecution against Tinubu.

Why Tinubu’s Privacy Argument Remains Central to the Dispute

One of the central issues in the litigation is whether the US government agencies are legally entitled to withhold or redact some of the information Greenspan is seeking.

Tinubu’s legal team continues to oppose the release of additional FBI and DEA records on privacy grounds.

The lawyers argue that the disputed information is protected by the law-enforcement privacy exemption under the US Freedom of Information Act and by the Privacy Act.

Their position is that the historical nature of the records and Tinubu’s subsequent emergence as Nigeria’s President do not automatically remove the privacy interests associated with the information.

Greenspan, meanwhile, is pursuing additional disclosure through the court proceedings.

The disagreement over access to the records remains separate from the drafting errors acknowledged in the latest amendment request.

Correcting those mistakes would not, by itself, resolve the underlying dispute over which records must be disclosed.

Has the US Court Approved Tinubu’s Amendment Request?

The documents described in the report do not establish that the court has approved the proposed amendment.

Tinubu’s lawyers attached a proposed order to their motion, requesting judicial permission to replace the earlier filing.

The accompanying document is marked “[Proposed] ORDER” and contains a space for the US District Judge’s signature.

A proposed order is a document submitted for the court’s consideration. It does not become an effective judicial ruling merely because a party has attached it to a motion.

Although Greenspan reportedly did not oppose the correction, his position does not constitute judicial approval.

The court must determine whether to grant the request before the amended response can formally replace the earlier submission.

The distinction is significant because the lawyers’ acknowledgement of drafting errors does not establish that the court has rejected their substantive legal arguments.

What Happens Next in the Tinubu US Court Case?

The immediate procedural question is whether the US District Court for the District of Columbia will permit Tinubu’s legal team to replace its earlier response with the amended document.

If the judge grants the request, the corrected submission would take the place of the previous filing.

The broader FOIA dispute would still concern Greenspan’s efforts to obtain additional records and the legal protections invoked to justify withholding or redacting information.

Tinubu’s lawyers have maintained their opposition to the release of the disputed records, while Greenspan continues to seek access through the judicial process.

The latest motion therefore concerns the accuracy of a court submission rather than a change in the underlying legal dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why did Tinubu’s lawyers request permission to amend their US court filing?

They acknowledged errors involving references to 1993, Tinubu’s public office and a comparison concerning student enrolment. The lawyers attributed the mistakes to the drafting and revision process and requested permission to submit a corrected response.

2. Did Tinubu’s lawyers change their main legal argument?

No. According to the amendment request, the corrections would not change their substantive argument that Tinubu retains privacy interests in historical investigative records.

3. Who is Aaron Greenspan?

Aaron Greenspan is an American transparency activist pursuing access to records concerning Tinubu and others through the US Freedom of Information Act.

4. Is Tinubu facing criminal prosecution in this FOIA case?

No. The proceedings described in the report concern a civil dispute over access to US government records, not a criminal prosecution against Tinubu.

5. Has the US judge approved the amendment?

The documents described in the report include a proposed order but do not establish that the judge has approved the request.

6. What records is Greenspan seeking?

Greenspan is seeking additional records from US government agencies, including the FBI and DEA, relating to historical investigative events involving Tinubu and others. He has also sought records connected to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.

Conclusion

The latest filing places the correction of Tinubu’s earlier court response before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Although his lawyers have acknowledged mistakes in the original document, they maintain that the amendments do not affect their opposition to the release of additional investigative records.

The next procedural development will depend on the court’s decision on the amendment request, while the underlying FOIA dispute remains a separate matter.

Tinubu has denied wrongdoing, and the Presidency has previously maintained that the proceedings concern access to government records rather than a criminal case against the President.

What do you think? Should public officials retain the same privacy protections over historical investigative records, or should public interest carry greater weight? Share your views in the comments.