The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the President.
The clarification was contained in a statement on Thursday, September 3, by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, amid recent reports and commentary on the case.
According to Onanuga, the case is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and concerns access to government records and the application of statutory exemptions under US law.
“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,” the statement said.
The Presidency traced the case to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
It said the agencies either withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to commence 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 referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
During the proceedings, the defendants invoked what the Presidency described as the “Glomar defence”, a position used by US law enforcement agencies where they are “not in a position to deny or admit” the existence of an investigation.
According to the statement, the defence is designed to protect government personnel as well as law enforcement sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said the US District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing them from the proceedings.
It said issues relating to claims involving the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained 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 statement said.
The plaintiff subsequently challenged the decisions by the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents.
The Presidency said the two agencies, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for the release of the documents without redactions.
It explained that some of the withheld information was protected by law, including records relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders covered by FOIA Exemption 3.
Other records, it said, were protected by attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges under FOIA Exemption 5, while some were prepared for law enforcement purposes.
The Presidency added that other documents contained information that could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, while some could reveal confidential sources or law enforcement techniques.
Tinubu, according to the statement, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), following advice from his lawyers.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA did not by itself establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” it said.
According to the statement, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18 to respond.
The Presidency also dismissed claims that Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Karl Von Batten, were central to the proceedings, saying neither was a party to the case.
It said the matter remained under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who would determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement said.
The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.
