By a recent application filed at the U.S. District Court, the FBI asked the Court for leave to explain (under seal) why releasing certain records regarding President Tinubu could endanger the physical safety of individuals and expose sensitive law enforcement methods.
Below is a summary of the possible reasons (and justifications) for FBI’s endangerment claim.
Under US FOIA Exemption 7(F), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F), agencies like the FBI may withhold law enforcement records if disclosure “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”
Courts require only a reasonable expectation of harm, not certainty. See Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195, 206 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Thus, the factual reasons the FBI might adduce to justify its endangerment claim are:
1, Revealing identities or details of confidential informants, cooperating witnesses, or third parties linked to the 1990s drug-trafficking probe, and exposing them (or relatives) to retaliation from remaining network members.
2, Identifying law-enforcement personnel whose names appear in the files poses risk of harassment or physical targeting.
3, Disclosing operational details that, even decades later, could enable retaliation against sources still living or associated with the investigation.
To be sure, US federal Courts routinely uphold such withholdings to protect informants and agents. See, e.g., Hammouda v. OIP, 920 F. Supp. 2d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 2013); Rugiero v. DOJ, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir. 2001).
In particular, FBI’s request for ex parte review underscores the additional issue that public justification itself could compromise these protected interests.
My prediction: In the end, Tinubu’s records will be disclosed, but significant portions will be redacted (hidden from view), leaving only details that will be of little or no political value.
