The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in a United States federal court is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not amount to a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, titled “Clarification on the Ongoing Freedom of Information Act Case in Washington, DC.”
The Presidency said no US court had found President Tinubu guilty of any wrongdoing in connection with the proceedings.
“To be clear, this is a civil dispute over the release of records under the US Freedom of Information Act,” the statement said. “It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and no court has found him guilty of any wrongdoing.”
The Presidency traced the background of the matter to a letter dated 4 February 2003, in which 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, outstanding wants or warrants for Mr Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
According to the statement, the present litigation began in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether particular records existed, Mr Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the US government agencies involved invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of particular records where doing so could itself reveal protected information.
It said the defence was invoked in relation to the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of those agencies and removed them from the proceedings, leaving claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA later produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
The plaintiff challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the records, prompting further arguments over whether the redactions were lawful.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, had cited several statutory exemptions in opposing the demand for the unredacted documents.
These included protections covering grand jury proceedings, certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said President Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to the protection of personal privacy in law enforcement records.
It said the plaintiff has until 11 September 2026 to file an opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the president as intervenor. The FBI, DEA and the intervenor then have until 18 September to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under the US FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” it said.
It added that the outcome of the litigation would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia on the basis of the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also rejected what it described as recent claims portraying Karl von Batten and his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, as central to the proceedings.
It said neither Mr von Batten nor Mr Abubakar was a party to the case.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA,” the statement said. “It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu.”
The Presidency said the remaining dispute concerned whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA complied with US law, adding that the court would determine the matter based on the parties’ filings and applicable legislation.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between verified developments in the court proceedings and political or partisan commentary.
