The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case.
In a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Presidency said recent reports about the case had generated speculation and required clarification.
“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 case originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, after some agencies withheld 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.
The court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the United States government agencies involved in the case had relied on what is known as the “Glomar defence”, which allows law enforcement agencies to decline to confirm or deny the existence of certain investigations or records.
“Based on the invocation of this defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).”
The agencies were consequently removed from the proceedings, while aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to redact parts of the documents, but the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request for the unredacted documents.
The Presidency listed several grounds for the redactions, including protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement materials, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Tinubu has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), based on advice from his lawyers, according to the statement.
The Presidency stressed that the disclosure or withholding of records under FOIA does not establish criminal liability.
“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.”
It also said the outcome of the case rests with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.”
The statement further dismissed recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, are not parties to the case.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and political commentary.
“The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
Faridah Abdulkadiri
Follow us on:
