The Presidency has moved to clarify the nature of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States involving records relating to President Bola Tinubu, insisting that the proceedings are a civil dispute over access to government documents and do not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, amid renewed public interest in proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case has attracted attention following the release of hundreds of pages of records by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning Tinubu, although portions of the documents were redacted.
The Presidency said the existence of the litigation, the release of records or the withholding of some information should not, on their own, be interpreted as evidence that Tinubu has been criminally charged or found guilty of any offence.
According to Onanuga, the litigation originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, who sought records concerning Tinubu from a number of United States government agencies.
The Presidency explained that after some agencies declined to confirm or deny the existence of certain records or withheld requested information, Greenspan subsequently instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court in 2023.
Tinubu was later permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, allowing him to assert legal interests in relation to some of the records being sought.
Presidency Explains Scope of the Litigation
The Presidency said the case initially involved several US government agencies, but the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
Their dismissal from the proceedings means that the remaining dispute primarily concerns records held by the FBI and DEA.
According to the statement, the two agencies, acting through the US Department of Justice and following court orders, released 399 pages of documents relating to the FOIA requests.
However, substantial portions of the records were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan has challenged the redactions and is seeking disclosure of additional portions of the documents that remain withheld.
The FBI and DEA have opposed the request for the release of the unredacted material, relying on several exemptions available under the US Freedom of Information Act.
The Presidency said the exemptions cited by the agencies relate to categories of information that US law protects from disclosure.
These include grand jury materials and information protected under the Pen Register Act, attorney-client communications and attorney work-product materials, law-enforcement records, information whose release could amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as information that could identify confidential sources or reveal investigative techniques.
The statement added that Tinubu has also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection for certain personal privacy interests contained in law-enforcement records.
‘Glomar Defence’ Explained
The Presidency also addressed the use of what is commonly known as the “Glomar defence” by some US government agencies.
According to the statement, the doctrine permits government agencies, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
Such a response may be used where acknowledging the existence or non-existence of records could itself reveal sensitive law-enforcement or national-security information.
The Presidency said the invocation of the defence should therefore not automatically be interpreted as confirmation that incriminating records exist.
It argued that the legal dispute before the court is fundamentally about the scope of disclosure permitted under US law and whether the agencies have properly applied the relevant FOIA exemptions.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” Onanuga stated.
He stressed that the proceedings concern access to government records and the interpretation and application of statutory exemptions governing disclosure.
Presidency References 2003 FBI Records Check
In seeking to provide further context, the Presidency also referred to an earlier FBI records check conducted more than two decades ago.
It said the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, addressed to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was serving as Governor of Lagos State at the time.
The Presidency presented the correspondence as part of the historical background to the current debate surrounding US records concerning the Nigerian president.
However, the current FOIA litigation concerns requests for records held by US government agencies and whether information contained in those records can legally be disclosed.
The Presidency maintained that the existence of records or a dispute over their disclosure should not be conflated with a criminal prosecution or conviction.
Court Sets Further Filing Deadlines
The statement also provided an update on the procedural timetable in the case.
According to the Presidency, Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, in his capacity as intervenor, are expected to have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by Greenspan.
The Presidency said the eventual determination of the outstanding issues would therefore rest with the US District Court rather than with political actors or public commentary surrounding the case.
Presidency Rejects Atiku, Von Batten Role
Onanuga also rejected claims by Karl von Batten that he and his client were central to the proceedings.
The Presidency maintained that neither von Batten nor former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is a party to the FOIA case.
It accused von Batten of inaccurately portraying their involvement in recent public comments concerning the litigation.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court,” Onanuga stated.
He added that the judge would determine the outcome based on the evidence before the court, applicable US law and the arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency further argued that political preferences or statements by individuals outside the proceedings could not determine the outcome of the litigation.
Call for Caution in Reporting
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the actual contents of court proceedings and political interpretations or claims surrounding the case.
It maintained that the litigation should not be described as a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
Instead, the Presidency characterised the outstanding dispute as a legal contest over whether the FBI and DEA properly applied US FOIA exemptions when they redacted portions of the records released to Greenspan.
The clarification comes as the case continues to attract considerable political and media attention in Nigeria, particularly amid preparations for the 2027 general elections and continuing debate over Tinubu’s political and legal history in the United States.
At the centre of the controversy is therefore not simply what information exists in US government files, but what portions of those records can lawfully be disclosed under American freedom-of-information and privacy laws.
Until the court rules on the outstanding issues, the Presidency has stressed that the proceedings should not be treated as a determination of criminal liability.
The final decision on the disputed records and the legality of the redactions will rest with the US District Court, which will consider the arguments and evidence presented by the parties before reaching its determination.
If you want, I can also produce 5 stronger newspaper-style headlines for this report, ranging from neutral to more attention-grabbing.
