The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
It stressed that the court has neither found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing nor is the litigation a criminal charge or trial against him.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga, following what he described as recent speculative reports concerning the ongoing case.
“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,” he said.
Read Also: President Tinubu Welcomes October Launch of Credit Rating Agency
Providing background to the case, Mr Onanuga recalled that 23 years ago, the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Mr Onanuga further disclosed that Mr Aaron Greenspan, who he said is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies in 2022 seeking records relating to President Tinubu. The presidentialential aide explained that after the 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.
The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
Mr Onanuga also explained that during the proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence,” which it described as a standard defence occasionally used by US law enforcement agencies.
“It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation. It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes,” he explained.
Following the invocation of the defence, the Special Adviser to the President highlighted that the United States District Court 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.
Mr Onanuga added that aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration were left for further consideration.
According to him, the FBI and DEA subsequently complied with the court’s orders by producing 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law, but the plaintiff challenged the agencies’ decisions to redact parts of the documents.
“The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the plaintiff’s request for the documents to be produced without redactions.”
Explaining the grounds for the redactions, Mr Onanuga listed some documents as protected from public disclosure by law, including transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings, while the Pen Register Act also protects information concerning certain court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap-and-trace device, all of these, he said, fall under FOIA Exemption 3.
He further explained that some of the documents fall within attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, including instances where FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from US Department of Justice attorneys, under FOIA Exemption 5.
Other documents, The Presidential Spokesperson said, were prepared for law enforcement purposes, while some contain information that could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed, attracting protections under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
He added that other records could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise techniques used by law enforcement agencies in investigating crimes, which are protected under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
“President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed under FOIA Exemption 7(C).”
On the next stage of the proceedings, Mr Onanuga disclosed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and intervenor.
He said the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidential aide emphasised that the release or withholding of records under the Freedom of Information Act does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” Onanuga maintained.
He further stated that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court, who will determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten,” the Presidency stated.
The statement also rejected recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten, saying it had inaccurately portrayed him and his client, the Atiku Abubakar as central to the proceedings and stressing that neither is a party to the case.
Reiterating his position, the Presidential Spokesperson said the litigation remains a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA and does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.
He also noted that the FBI and DEA have already produced records with redactions, leaving the legality of those redactions as the outstanding issue before the court.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement said.
Mr Onanuga therefore urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from what it described as partisan speculation.
