A United States federal court has reportedly authorised the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to submit documents linked to a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for private judicial review.

The development was disclosed by Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., which said in a post on X that it had been informed that Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FBI permission to provide the records to the court in-camera.

An in-camera review allows a judge to examine disputed documents privately to determine whether they are protected from public disclosure under applicable law.

However, the alleged order had not been published on the court docket as of the time of the firm’s post. The development therefore remains based on the firm’s account and has not been independently verified.

The firm further claimed that Judge Howell had given the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and President Tinubu until August 28, 2026, “and no later,” to file their opposition to the release of the records.

The case stems from FOIA requests filed by American Aaron Greenspan between 2022 and 2023 seeking records held by the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other U.S. agencies concerning a 1990s Chicago heroin-trafficking investigation.

The records became the subject of a major legal battle after U.S. authorities initially relied on a “Glomar response”, a legal position in which an agency refuses to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.

In April 2025, Judge Howell rejected the FBI and DEA’s use of that response, describing it as “neither logical nor plausible” after the agencies had previously acknowledged investigations relating to Tinubu.

The judge subsequently directed the agencies to identify and release records that were not protected by applicable FOIA exemptions, finding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interests asserted by the agencies in the circumstances before the court.

The dispute is connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture involving approximately $460,000 in funds associated with Tinubu that were forfeited to the U.S. government.

Tinubu was not criminally charged in connection with the forfeiture and has maintained that the matter was a civil settlement.

In its latest post, Von Batten-Montague-York claimed that the FBI had acknowledged possessing “highly sensitive drug-trafficking-related information” concerning Tinubu and argued that the request for an in-camera review was consistent with procedures used to protect confidential law-enforcement sources and sensitive investigative information.

The lobbying firm also contrasted the handling of the case under the administration of former President Joe Biden with that under President Donald Trump, claiming that the current Justice Department was advancing the matter more quickly.

The firm additionally repeated an allegation that Tinubu provided information about alleged co-conspirators in exchange for immunity. That claim has not been established by any U.S. court and has not been independently confirmed by the FBI or the DOJ.

Public filings show that Von Batten-Montague-York was retained by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar in March 2026 to work on efforts to “protect and strengthen his reputational standing” in the United States.

The firm subsequently thanked Trump and senior White House officials for what it described as progress in the case.

If the reported order is confirmed, the in-camera review would give Judge Howell an opportunity to examine the disputed records privately and determine which portions, if any, are protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions.

Such exemptions can cover sensitive law-enforcement information, investigative techniques and material that could identify confidential sources.

The FBI, DEA and DOJ have previously sought additional time to compile, review and process records connected to the case.

As of the latest available information, Tinubu’s U.S. legal representatives had not publicly commented on the reported development.

The court docket will ultimately determine whether the reported order and August 28 deadline were formally entered and clarify the scope of any records submitted for private review.