The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and does not constitute a criminal trial or charge against the President.
The clarification followed what the Presidency described as recent speculative reports concerning the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the litigation was focused on access to government records and the legality of redactions made by US law enforcement agencies.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the statement said.
The Presidency said the case 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 commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
According to the Presidency, some of the US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows an agency to decline to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could reveal protected information.
The defence, it said, protects government personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques used by law enforcement agencies.
Based on the invocation of the defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, 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, leaving aspects of the case involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
The plaintiff, however, challenged the redactions and sought access to the documents without the withheld portions.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several statutory exemptions.
The Presidency said some of the withheld information was protected from public disclosure by law, including Grand Jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders under the Pen Register Act.
Other exemptions, it said, covered attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
“President Bola Tinubu, on advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed by FOIA Exemption 7(C),” the Presidency said.
It stressed that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA did not automatically establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” it said.
The Presidency also recalled that in 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then the Governor of Lagos State.
It said the ongoing litigation should therefore not be portrayed as a criminal proceeding against the President.
The Presidency further disclosed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and the President’s legal team.
It said the FBI, DEA and the President’s legal team have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency also rejected what it described as attempts to portray former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Karl von Batten as central parties to the litigation, saying neither is a party to the case.
It said the outcome of the matter rests with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement said.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and partisan speculation.
It maintained that the case remained a civil dispute over access to government records and whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful.