Presidency, on Thursday, clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving records relating to President Bola Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made this clarification in a statement in Abuja.
Onanuga explained that the case filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, concerns requests for the disclosure of government records under the US FOIA.
The presidential spokesman said the matter originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
The statement read, “The Presidency has noted recent speculative reports concerning an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
“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.
“Here is the background to the case, which comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“In 2022, Mr Aaron Greenspan, who is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
“After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Mr Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
“The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
“During the proceedings, the defendants asserted the ‘Glomar defence’, a standard defence that US law enforcement agencies invoke from time to time. It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation.
“It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes.
“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.
“It ruled that they be removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, for further consideration.
“In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The plaintiff challenged the FBI and DEA’s decisions to redact portions of the documents produced.
“The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, USDoJ, pushed back against the plaintiff’s requests.”
Onanuga added that the agencies argued that some of the documents were protected from public disclosure by law, including grand jury proceedings and information covered by the Pen Register Act.
The Presidency said the agencies also relied on attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, as well as exemptions covering law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Onanuga said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
The statement added,
“The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to the processes that the plaintiff might have filed.
“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.
“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.
“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 litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu. The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.
“The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
