News
Presidency: Tinubu’s US Court Case Concerns Records, Not Criminal Liability
The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the President.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, amid recent reports and public commentary concerning the case.
According to the Presidency, the case concerns access to government records and the application of statutory exemptions under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It stressed that the court had not found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
The statement also recalled that, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The Presidency said the current matter dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
It said that after some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
According to the statement, the court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency further said that during the proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, which it described as a standard position used by US law enforcement agencies when they are not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
It said the defence was intended to protect government personnel, sources and investigative techniques used by law enforcement agencies.
According to the Presidency, the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (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.
The Presidency said the remaining aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were still under consideration.
It further said that, in compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
According to the statement, the plaintiff challenged the decisions by the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents and sought their release without redactions.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several FOIA exemptions.
It said some of the documents were protected from public disclosure by law, including records relating to grand jury proceedings and certain information concerning court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
The Presidency also said some documents fell under attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, while others were prepared for law-enforcement purposes.
According to the statement, some of the documents contained information which, if disclosed, could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, while other information could reveal confidential sources or compromise law-enforcement techniques.
The Presidency said President Tinubu had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), on the advice of his lawyers.
It maintained that 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 Presidency said.
Continuing,the statement said that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and the President, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes that may be filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency also rejected recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying that neither he nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
It said the matter remained under the control of 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 urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish what it described as verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.
“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 statement said.
The Presidency added that the United States District Court would determine whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful based on the filings and applicable US law.
It therefore called on the media and the public to report the proceedings within their proper legal context rather than relying on political commentary.