The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Tinubu in a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal case.
The clarification followed what the Presidency described as speculative reports and public commentary suggesting that proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia amounted to a criminal case or a judicial finding of wrongdoing against Tinubu.
In a statement on Thursday, the Presidency stressed that the court had neither charged nor convicted the President of any criminal offence.
It said the dispute centres on requests for access to records held by US government agencies and whether portions of those records can lawfully remain redacted.
The Presidency recalled that the matter dates back more than two decades to a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun.
According to the Presidency, the letter stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Lagos State governor.
The statement said Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests in 2022 to several US government agencies seeking records relating to the President.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny the existence of certain records, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court later allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
What the US court case is about
The Presidency said the defendants invoked the “Glomar defence”, a principle under US law that allows a government agency to decline to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could reveal protected information.
It said the defence is routinely used by US law-enforcement and intelligence agencies where disclosure could expose investigative sources, methods or other protected information.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing those agencies from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records in compliance with the court’s orders, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan subsequently challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold parts of the records.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the demand for disclosure of the unredacted documents on several legal grounds.
These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.
The agencies also relied on exemptions protecting attorney-client communications and attorney work product, as well as records prepared for law-enforcement purposes.
Other exemptions cited relate to personal privacy, confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques and procedures.
The Presidency added that Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
Next steps in the litigation
The Presidency said the next stage of the proceedings would be determined by filings before the court.
It noted that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and the intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond.
The Presidency cautioned against interpreting the release or withholding of records under FOIA as evidence of criminal liability.
“Release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the statement said.
It stressed that the central issue before the court is access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.
The Presidency also rejected commentary suggesting that former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar or Karl von Batten, whom it described as associated with the former vice-president, are central parties to the litigation.
It said neither Atiku nor von Batten is a party to the case, adding that the proceedings remain under the control of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Presidency said the outcome would ultimately be determined by the court based on the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties, rather than political commentary.
It urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and partisan interpretations of the litigation.
The Presidency reiterated that the case remains a civil FOIA dispute and does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
