President Bola Tinubu has clarified that the ongoing legal battle in the United States over access to records concerning him is a civil Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
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 created misleading impressions about its nature and implications.
“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,” it stated
The statement explained that the case originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to President Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, after the agencies either withheld some records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States 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 also recalled that the development came more than two decades after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a February 4, 2003 letter to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then the governor of Lagos State.
During the proceedings, the US government agencies invoked what the Presidency described as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
“It simply means the government agency is not “in a position to deny or admit” the existence of an investigation,” the statement said, adding that the defence is used to protect government personnel, investigative techniques and confidential sources.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
However, aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the demand for the release of the unredacted records.
The agencies cited several legal grounds for the redactions, including protection of grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement materials, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The statement added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against certain disclosures that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Presidency stressed that the mere release or withholding of records under the FOIA should not be interpreted as proof of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”
It 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, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, have until September 18 to respond.
The Presidency also took aim at political commentary surrounding the case, insisting that the proceedings remain under the control of the US court.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”
Onanuga also disputed claims by Karl von Batten about his relevance to the proceedings, saying neither he nor Atiku Abubakar was 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 Presidency urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political interpretations of 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 that the outstanding issue before the US court was whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful under American law.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.”
The Presidency therefore called on the media to rely on verified court proceedings rather than what it described as partisan speculation.