The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving United States government records on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga.
The Presidency said recent reports about the case had generated speculation, stressing that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had neither charged nor found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
How the Case Started
According to the statement, the matter dates back to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
“After some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
“The court later allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor,” he added.
The Presidency also referenced a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun.
It said the letter stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Tinubu, who was then the governor of Lagos State.
RELATED NEWS:
- Reno Omokri: FBI Records Containing Tinubu’s Name Should Not be Interpreted As Criminal Records
- US Firm Reports $3m Bribe Offer to Halt Tinubu Drug Trafficking Probe
- Presidency Tackles Atiku on Moves to Lobby US Against Tinubu
Court Upholds ‘Glomar Defence’
The Presidency explained that the US government agencies involved invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence.”
It described the defence as a standard position used by US law enforcement agencies when they are not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
Following the defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
The agencies were subsequently removed from the proceedings, while issues involving the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration remained before the court.
FBI, DEA Release 399 Pages
The statement said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold some portions of the documents.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for unredacted documents, citing several FOIA exemptions.
These included protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client communications and work product, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against certain unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
Parties Have September Deadlines To File Opposition
According to the statement, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu will then have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
It said the central issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful under US law.
Presidency Dismisses Political Commentary
The Presidency said the outcome of the case would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
It also dismissed recent commentary by Karl Von Batten, saying he and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar were not parties to the case.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the statement said.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation.
Rafiyat Sadiq is a political, justice, and human rights reporter with Pinnacle Daily, known for fearless reporting and impactful storytelling. At Pinnacle Daily, she brings clarity and depth to issues shaping governance, democracy, and the protection of citizens’ rights.