The Presidency has stated that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation involving President Bola Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records-disclosure dispute rather than a criminal one.
According to Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the case against Tinubu does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or court verdict.
It further stated that the president had not been found guilty of any criminal offenses.
“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 Presidency stated that the situation began in 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to multiple US government departments seeking Tinubu-related data.
According to the statement, the agencies concealed some records or refused to acknowledge or deny their existence, causing Greenspan to file Civil Action No. 23-1816 with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
Tinubu was later granted permission to intervene in the proceedings by the court.
The Presidency also cited a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then-Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, claiming that an FBI records search revealed no criminal arrest records or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor.
It stated that during the trials, the defendants invoked the “Gloria defense,” which it defined as a typical defense utilized by US law enforcement authorities on occasion.
“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,” the statement explained.
The Presidency stated that the US District Court thereafter issued summary judgment in favor of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
It also stated that certain aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration were still being considered.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of information in accordance with the court’s instructions, with portions blacked out under US law.
The plaintiff then disputed the FBI and DEA’s judgments to redact portions of the records.
The Presidency stated that the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, resisted the request for the unredacted records, alleging multiple FOIA exclusions.
It highlighted the exemptions, which included records that are legally shielded from public disclosure, such as grand jury proceedings and some information about pen registers or trap and track devices.
It also mentioned documents protected by attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, documents prepared for law enforcement purposes, information whose disclosure could be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and information that could reveal confidential sources or law enforcement techniques.
According to the statement, Tinubu used his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C) on the advice of his lawyers.
The Presidency stated that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to register any opposition and respond to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
It further stated that the FBI, DEA, and intervenor would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any procedures filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency emphasized that the revelation or withholding of documents under FOIA did not result in criminal responsibility.
“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 said.
It also stated that the case was under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court, who would determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law, and arguments of 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 statement said.
The Presidency also denied recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client were not parties to the case.
“Recent public commentary by Mr. Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case,” it said.
It reaffirmed that the litigation was a civil records-disclosure dispute, with the remaining question being whether the FBI and DEA’s redactions were lawful.
“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 FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the Presidency said.
It further stated that the court would decide the issue based on the pleadings and applicable US law.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement stated.
The presidency has consequently encouraged the media and the public to discern between verified court proceedings and political speculation.
