The Presidency has moved to dispel what it described as “speculative reports” surrounding a Freedom of Information Act case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court in Washington, DC, stating that the litigation does not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, said the case is a civil dispute over access to government records under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
“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,” Onanuga said.
The clarification comes as the case, filed in 2023, continues before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the Presidency, the case originated in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the Washington court in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the agencies initially invoked what is known in US law as the “Glomar defense”, a mechanism under which an agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether it possesses records relating to an investigation.
The statement explained that the defense protects law-enforcement personnel, investigative methods, and confidential sources.
On the basis of the defense, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for US Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, however, remained involved in aspects of the case.
The two agencies subsequently released 399 pages of records, although parts of the documents were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought access to the unredacted material.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several statutory exemptions.
Among the reasons given were protections for grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court-authorized pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
The agencies also relied on attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement protections, personal-privacy protections, and exemptions covering confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu had, on the advice of his lawyers, separately asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against certain unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
The statement also drew attention to a 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun.
The Presidency said the letter, dated 4 February 2003, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
The statement presented the 2003 correspondence as relevant background to the current litigation, which began nearly two decades later.
The Presidency also rejected suggestions that the case establishes criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.
“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,” Onanuga said.
The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the Presidency, Greenspan has until 11 September 2026 to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until 18 September to respond to any processes filed by Greenspan.
The Presidency said the ultimate question before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful under US law.
It also pushed back against recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
“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 statement said.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organizations and the public to distinguish between the contents of the court proceedings and political interpretations of the case.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga said.
- Police Pay ₦2.3bn Insurance Benefits to Families of 2,971 Fallen Officers - September 3, 2026
- Tinubu Not on Criminal Trial in US FOIA Case, Presidency Clarifies - September 3, 2026
- Insecurity: APC Professionals Forum Demands Tighter Border Security - September 2, 2026