By Seun Ibiyemi
The Presidency has urged the media and the public to distinguish between the ongoing United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Tinubu and claims that he is facing a criminal case in the United States.
In a statement issued yesterday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the matter before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns access to government records and the legality of redactions, not a criminal charge or conviction.
It said the court had not found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing and urged Nigerians to rely on verified court proceedings rather than partisan commentary.
According to the statement, the case arose from Freedom of Information Act requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
The Presidency said that after some agencies withheld 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.
It added that the court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the defendants had invoked the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which a government agency may decline to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an investigation.
It explained that the defence is used to protect law enforcement personnel, investigative techniques and confidential sources.
According to the statement, the court 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).
The agencies were subsequently removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law.
It said Greenspan subsequently challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the documents.
The statement said the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request to release the documents without redactions.
The agencies argued that some of the records were protected from public disclosure by law, including grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
The Presidency also said the agencies relied on exemptions covering attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law enforcement records.
The Presidency said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the intervenor.
READ ALSO: NIMASA DG urges staff to build on maritime sector gains
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The statement stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“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 Presidency said.
It added that the remaining question before the court was whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful.
The Presidency also rejected what it described as inaccurate public commentary portraying Karl von Batten and his client, Atiku Abubakar, as central to the proceedings.
It said neither was a party to the case and that the outcome would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court based on the evidence, applicable law and the parties’ arguments.
The Presidency urged the media to report the matter accurately and avoid presenting political commentary as established facts.
