Presidency, on Thursday, explained why President Bola Tinubu is opposing the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies.
According to the Presidency, the matter involves lawful exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and does not amount to a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
The Presidency, in a statement issued on Thursday amid renewed public debate over the matter, said the ongoing litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil dispute over access to government records.
It stressed that neither the court nor any US government agency has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the case.
Presidency said the dispute dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
The statement said after some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed, Greenspan commenced 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.
The Presidency also recalled that, 23 years earlier, the American Consulate in Lagos, in a February 4, 2003 letter to then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
Explaining the current dispute, the Presidency said the US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.
It said the defence is used to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The court subsequently 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, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, have already released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents.
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the demand for the release of the unredacted documents on several legal grounds.
It listed the reasons as follows:
Some records are protected by law from public disclosure, including grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.
Some documents are protected by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under FOIA Exemption 5.
Some records were prepared for law-enforcement purposes and are covered by applicable FOIA exemptions.
Some documents contain information that could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Some records could expose confidential sources or reveal law-enforcement techniques if released, falling under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.
It emphasised that Tinubu’s position should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, stressing that the central issue before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with US law.
Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.
It said the case remains under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.
Presidency also dismissed recent statements by Washington-based lobbyist, Karl Von Batten, alleging that neither Von Batten nor his client, Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation.
It accused Von Batten of inaccurately portraying himself and his client as central figures in the proceedings.
“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 Presidency said.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.
