Tinubu’s US case is civil records dispute, not criminal trial – Presidency breaks silence

The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil dispute over access to government documents and not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

According to Onanuga, the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns requests for the disclosure of government records under the US Freedom of Information Act.

He said the litigation originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.

“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 Presidency said the matter dates back to FOIA requests made by Greenspan in 2022 after he sought records from US government agencies.

According to the statement, the agencies either withheld some of the requested records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed.

Greenspan subsequently instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court later permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency also referenced a 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

During the FOIA proceedings, the agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which a government agency may decline to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could reveal protected information.

Onanuga said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), effectively removing them from the proceedings.

He said the remaining aspects of the litigation involved records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the documents, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request.

The agencies argued that some of the withheld information was protected from public disclosure, including material relating to grand jury proceedings and information covered by the Pen Register Act.

Other grounds cited included attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, as well as exemptions covering law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on legal advice, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which concerns information in law-enforcement records that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Onanuga said the litigation remained ongoing, with the plaintiff expected to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes by September 11, 2026.

The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, are expected to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff by September 18.

The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA should not be interpreted as proof of 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,” Onanuga said.

He also pushed back against commentary surrounding Atiku Abubakar’s political activities and the role of US lobbyist Karl Von Batten in relation to the matter.

According to Onanuga, neither Atiku nor Von Batten is a party to the FOIA litigation.

He said the case remained under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who would determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.

“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 therefore urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish the ongoing court proceedings from political commentary and speculation.

The clarification comes amid an escalating political dispute between the Tinubu and Atiku camps ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the US records litigation becoming a major point of contention between supporters of the two political camps.