The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil dispute over access to government records and does 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.
The Presidency said recent reports suggesting that Tinubu was facing a criminal case in the United States were speculative and misleading.
“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 case, identified as Civil Action No. 23-1816, was instituted in 2023 by Aaron Greenspan before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the Presidency, Greenspan had in 2022 submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
It said after some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced the legal action.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also recalled that in 2003, the US 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.
The statement explained that during the court proceedings, some US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain investigative records.
“It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation,” the Presidency explained.
Following the invocation of 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, leaving claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, released 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
It said the plaintiff subsequently challenged the decision by the two agencies to redact portions of the documents.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for the unredacted documents on several grounds.
These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain court orders under FOIA Exemption 3, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under Exemption 5, and protections for law-enforcement records.
Other grounds cited were the protection of personal privacy under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), as well as the protection of confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
It added that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and replies to processes filed by the defendants and the President, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA does not establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” it said.
The Presidency further stated that the matter remained under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who would determine the outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
It also dismissed recent claims by Karl Von Batten regarding the proceedings, saying neither he nor his alleged client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
“Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case,” the statement said.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish between the ongoing court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the matter.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” it added.
It said the remaining issue before the US court was whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the Presidency said.
