Tinubu: Presidency Clarifies US FOIA Case, Says Litigation Is Not Criminal Trial
Reported By Facthabournews
The Presidency has clarified the ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, insisting that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian President.
In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said recent reports and public commentary had created the impression that Tinubu was facing a criminal trial in the United States.
Onanuga said that interpretation was incorrect, stressing that the case concerns requests for access to government records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and does not amount to a criminal charge, conviction or judicial finding of criminal wrongdoing against the President.
The Presidency’s clarification comes amid renewed public attention to the case after documents and arguments connected to the litigation began generating political controversy in Nigeria.
According to the statement, the FOIA requests were submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, who sought records relating to Tinubu from several United States government agencies. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court record confirms that Greenspan’s FOIA litigation seeks disclosure of criminal investigative documents relating to Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele, with the case involving agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA and Central Intelligence Agency, CIA.
The Presidency said Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, giving his legal team an opportunity to assert applicable rights concerning the release of records.
A major issue in the litigation has been the use of what is known in U.S. law as the “Glomar” response or defence. The Presidency explained that the position allows a government agency, in certain circumstances, to decline to confirm or deny whether records relating to an investigation exist.
According to the statement, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service after those agencies relied on applicable legal protections.
The agencies were subsequently removed from the relevant proceedings, leaving aspects of the litigation involving the FBI and DEA for further consideration.
The Presidency said that, following the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions contained in U.S. law.
The dispute has now shifted, in part, to whether the redactions applied by the two agencies are lawful.
According to Onanuga, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, have opposed the request for the release of the documents without redactions.
The government agencies have relied on several exemptions under the U.S. FOIA framework. These include protections for information relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court-authorised surveillance measures.
Other exemptions cited by the agencies concern attorney-client communications, attorney work product, law-enforcement records and information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agencies have also argued that certain information could identify confidential sources or reveal investigative techniques used by law-enforcement agencies.
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has separately asserted privacy rights under the relevant FOIA exemption.
The statement stressed that the withholding or redaction of records under FOIA does not automatically establish criminal liability.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, adding that the central legal question is whether the agencies properly applied statutory exemptions when deciding what information could be withheld.
The controversy has also brought renewed attention to a 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos concerning an FBI records check on Tinubu.
The February 4, 2003 letter, addressed to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI National Crime Information Center check returned no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu. Contemporary and subsequent Nigerian reports have reproduced the contents of the letter.
However, the scope of that letter has become part of the current public debate. The letter concerned a specific NCIC records check and does not, by itself, resolve every question concerning other historical investigative records held by U.S. agencies.
A recent report examining the documents noted that the 2003 letter and the current FOIA litigation concern different categories of records. The FOIA case involves investigative material, while the earlier NCIC check concerned arrest records, warrants and wanted notices.
The Presidency has nevertheless argued that the current litigation should not be portrayed as a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
Onanuga also criticised recent commentary by U.S. lobbyist Karl von Batten, arguing that descriptions of the proceedings had inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central parties to the litigation.
According to the Presidency, neither Atiku Abubakar nor von Batten is a party to the case. It said the proceedings remain under the control of the U.S. District Court and will be determined by the applicable law, evidence and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency further stated that Judge Beryl A. Howell would determine the outstanding issues in the case and urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish court proceedings from political commentary.
The case has attracted considerable political interest in Nigeria because of Tinubu’s position as President and the approaching 2027 general election. Opposition politicians and supporters of the administration have interpreted developments surrounding the FOIA litigation differently, making the legal proceedings a subject of intense political debate.
The Presidency’s latest statement is therefore intended to establish what it considers to be the correct legal character of the case.
The immediate issue before the court is whether the FBI and DEA can lawfully maintain the redactions they applied to portions of the records already released.
The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu’s legal team. The FBI, DEA and the President, as intervenor, will then have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The outcome could determine whether additional portions of the records are released or whether the existing redactions remain protected under U.S. law.
For now, the litigation remains a civil FOIA dispute rather than a criminal trial. No statement from the court identified in the current proceedings establishes that President Tinubu has been convicted of a criminal offence as a result of the FOIA case.
The Presidency has consequently urged the Nigerian media and the public to rely on the actual court proceedings and applicable legal documents when reporting the matter, rather than treating political claims or speculation as judicial findings.
As the September filing deadlines approach, attention will remain focused on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and on whether the court ultimately upholds the FBI and DEA’s redactions or orders the release of additional information.
The case therefore remains legally significant, but its significance at this stage lies primarily in the continuing dispute over public access to government records and the limits of FOIA exemptions, rather than in any criminal conviction against the Nigerian President.
