The Presidency has dismissed reports portraying the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation in the United States as a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, stressing that the matter is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records.
In a statement issued by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns whether US government agencies lawfully withheld or redacted certain records requested under the American FOIA.
It stressed that neither the court nor the proceedings had established any criminal liability against Tinubu.
The Presidency traced the background of the matter to February 4, 2003, when the American Consulate in Lagos reportedly informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, outstanding wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
According to the statement, Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests in 2022 to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
399 Pages Released
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 particular investigative records.
It said the court, based on that defence, granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involving the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are still under consideration.
In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions under US law.
The plaintiff has challenged the redactions and is seeking further disclosure.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for unredacted documents, citing several statutory exemptions.
These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain court-authorised surveillance records; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges; law-enforcement records; personal privacy; confidential sources; and investigative techniques.
President Tinubu has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
Court Sets September Deadlines
The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and the intervenor will then have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency emphasised that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability. “The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the statement said.
It further cautioned the Nigerian media against presenting political commentary as established facts, stressing that the case is under the jurisdiction of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Presidency also rejected recent claims by Karl von Batten suggesting that he and his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, are central to the proceedings, stating that neither is a party to the case.
According to the statement, the outcome will be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties, rather than political commentary.
The Presidency urged the media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and partisan speculation, reiterating that the litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal trial or charge against President Tinubu.
