By Lizzy Chirkpi
The Presidency has clarified the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court, insisting that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, following recent reports and public commentary on the case.
Onanuga said the proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had been subjected to speculative interpretations.
“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,” he said.
The case followed FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, after some of the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
What the US Agencies Disclosed
The Presidency said some of the agencies invoked the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that permits government agencies to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could disclose protected information.
Onanuga said the defence is used to protect government personnel, investigative sources and law-enforcement techniques.
“Based on the invocation of this defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),” he said.
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).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA later produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions under US law.
Greenspan challenged the redactions and asked the court to order the release of the documents without them. The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several FOIA exemptions.
According to the Presidency, some of the withheld information relates to grand jury proceedings and court orders protected under the Pen Register Act. Other records, it said, contain material covered by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges.
The agencies also argued that some documents were compiled for law-enforcement purposes and that disclosure could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or reveal confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Tinubu, the Presidency said, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal privacy interests in law-enforcement records.
Recalls 2003 FBI Records Check
The Presidency also referred to an earlier communication between US authorities and Nigerian officials in 2003.
According to Onanuga, the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, 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.
The Presidency said the communication was part of the background to the current controversy but stressed that the present FOIA litigation should not be construed as a criminal proceeding.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” Onanuga said.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”
Dismisses Atiku, Von Batten’s Role
The Presidency also criticised recent comments by Karl von Batten, accusing him of inaccurately portraying himself and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as central to the proceedings.
“Neither is a party to the case,” the statement said.
It added that the litigation “does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu.”
According to the Presidency, the outstanding issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga said.
He said the matter was before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who would determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, will then have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
Onanuga urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what he described as partisan speculation.