US court DELAYS release of Tinubu’s documents, but main case still pending
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
A request seeking to compel US security agencies to immediately release confidential information on President Bola Tinubu has been rejected by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.
Tinubu’s lawyers have filed a motion at the court seeking to be allowed to defend him in the in the main suit.
Judge Beryl A. Howell in a ruling on Monday declined Alan Greenspan’s request on the grounds he failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant of such a prayer contained in a motion for emergency hearing, which he filed the same day.
Tinubu had filed an application before the court to stop US government agencies from releasing his records as ordered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
The defendants are the Executive Officers (EOUSA) US Department of State, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
All the agencies had agreed to comply with a court order to release Tinubu’s documents in their care.
The FBI announced in September plans to release 25,000 documents on him at 500 documents every month for 50 months until 2017.
The State Department said it would equally start turning over 450 pages from its archive on Tinubu every six weeks, also beginning this month.
The IRS, DEA, and CIA also pledged to release thousands of pages of records on him in compliance with the law.
The documents are to be released sequel to an FOIA subpoena obtained in court by IT consultant Greenspan, an American who runs PlainSite, a website on anti-corruption and transparency in public service.
Greenspan filed the FIOA request in 2022 in collaboration with Nigerian investigative journalist David Hundeyin.
The latest court application was brought by Tinubu as an intervenor following an FOI request dated 21 July 2022.
Greenspan filed the emergency motion seeking to compel the EOUSA to release the documents by 31 October 2023.
He pleaded for a quick release, saying they are needed to be presented at the Nigerian Supreme Court.
He had asked that the documents be released to him latest October 31.
Greenspan accused the law enforcement agencies of violating the FIOA by failing to release within the statutory time “documents relating to purported federal investigations into” Tinubu and one Mueez Adegboyega Akande, now deceased.
Greenspan argued records are from the Northern District of Illinois and/or Northern District of Indiana “involving charging decisions” against Tinubu and Akande.
But the Judge ruled Greenspan failed to convince the court the public issues that will cause it to overlook the privacy rights of Tinubu, whose lawyers have filed a motion at the court seeking to be allowed to defend him in the suit.
__________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Atiku alerts, Tinubu plotting media gag on Chicago papers, FBI documents
Atiku urges Supreme Court to admit Tinubu’s Chicago papers to discourage forgery
Evidence in Tinubu’s Chicago papers not statute barred, Atiku tells Supreme Court
__________________________________________________________________
Failure to meet preconditions for granting request
Court filings showed the EOUSA had originally denied Greenspan’s FOIA request “invoking FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(c), which protect information that would constitute unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and information compiled for law enforcement purposes that may constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a third party.”
The Judge ruled Greenspan did not meet the preconditions for granting his request, per reporting by PREMIUM TIMES.
“Plaintiff has failed even to attempt to argue how his request may overcome those exemptions and achieve a likelihood of success on the merits.
“This failure to address this important factor in his Emergency Motion weighs strongly in favour of denying his motion,” Howell said.
Citing a plethora of cases to buttress the preconditions, the judge noted Greenspan must prove “that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction, rather than a mere possibility.
“Plaintiff falls far short of satisfying this standard. He has not supplied the court with any indication of a concrete, actual threat that he will suffer in the absence of an injunction.
“While his Emergency Motion states that a Nigerian Supreme Court hearing is scheduled to occur in the coming days, plaintiff cites no injury he will suffer that is in any way traceable to the relief requested in this motion.”
The Judge explained Greenspan’s request “…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.
“The balance of equities militates strongly in favor of denying this Emergency Motion.”
Howell said there was no need to consider Greenspan’s request for a hearing to “discuss even the most remote possibility of documents being produced before the October 31, 2023 chosen by defendants for themselves.
“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Hearing to Compel Immediate Document Production, ECF No. 17 is DENIED. SO ORDERED.”
