Isaac Samuel
Lawyers representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have acknowledged errors in an earlier filing before a United States federal court and asked the court for permission to replace it with an amended version.
The request was contained in a motion filed on October 1, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by American researcher and transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan.
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), concerns Greenspan’s efforts to obtain records from U.S. government agencies relating to Tinubu and others.
In the motion titled, “Motion to Amend Response Brief [DE 98],” Tinubu’s lawyers asked the court to permit them to file an amended response to Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment.
The lawyers said the corrections related specifically to Part 1.c of their earlier response, which addressed the timing of investigative events and Tinubu’s subsequent election as President of Nigeria.
They said the earlier filing contained incorrect references concerning 1993 and Tinubu’s public office, as well as a separate error involving a comparison between the age of investigative records and student enrolment.
According to the lawyers, the intended argument was that the investigative events that occurred between 1988 and 1992 took place decades before Tinubu was elected President.
“The point of part 1.c is that the underlying investigative events that transpired in 1988-1992 occurred decades before the Intervenor was elected to the Presidency of Nigeria,” they said.
However, they acknowledged that the point had been expressed “inadequately and incorrectly” in relation to public office and the year 1993.
They also admitted that the comparison involving student enrolment was incorrect because the enrolment event occurred before the decades-old investigative events under discussion.
The lawyers said the errors occurred unintentionally during the drafting and revision of the filing and were not detected before it was submitted to the court.
They added that Greenspan subsequently identified the two errors in his reply.
Despite seeking the corrections, Tinubu’s lawyers maintained that the substance of their legal argument remained unchanged.
“In the proposed amended response, the substance of the argument in part 1.c remains unchanged,” they said.
Their position is that Tinubu’s privacy interests in records relating to events that occurred decades ago did not disappear because he subsequently became President of Nigeria.
The lawyers also said they had discussed the proposed corrections with Greenspan and his legal team before filing the motion, adding that the plaintiff indicated he did not oppose the amendment.
They consequently asked the court to permit the amended response to replace the earlier filing, identified as Document 98.
A proposed order was attached to the motion for the judge’s consideration. However, the document does not establish that the judge had granted the request, as it contained a blank space for the judge’s signature.
The underlying case involves Greenspan’s request for records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys concerning a 1990s narcotics investigation involving Tinubu.
Greenspan is also seeking records relating to a 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
