The Presidency has clarified the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stressing that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
In a statement issued on Thursday, September 3, 2026, by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said recent reports about the proceedings had generated speculative interpretations that did not accurately reflect the nature or status of the case.
According to Onanuga, the litigation arose from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
According to Onanuga, the litigation arose from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court in 2023.
The Presidency noted that the court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, while several US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny whether particular records or an investigation exist.
Onanuga explained that the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings.
He added that aspects of the case involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration remained under consideration, following which the two agencies produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
The statement said Greenspan subsequently challenged the redactions and sought the release of the documents without those portions being withheld, prompting the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, to defend their decision.
According to the Presidency, some of the withheld information is protected by law, including materials relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders covered by the Pen Register Act. It said other redactions were based on attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement protections and safeguards against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agencies also maintained that some information could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise investigative techniques used by law enforcement agencies, grounds which the Presidency said are recognised under relevant FOIA exemptions.
Tinubu, the statement added, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to the protection of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
The Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The Presidency noted that the court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, while several US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny whether particular records or an investigation exist.
Onanuga explained that the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings.
He added that aspects of the case involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration remained under consideration, following which the two agencies produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
The statement said Greenspan subsequently challenged the redactions and sought the release of the documents without those portions being withheld, prompting the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, to defend their decision.
According to the Presidency, some of the withheld information is protected by law, including materials relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders covered by the Pen Register Act. It said other redactions were based on attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement protections and safeguards against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agencies also maintained that some information could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise investigative techniques used by law enforcement agencies, grounds which the Presidency said are recognised under relevant FOIA exemptions.
Tinubu, the statement added, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to the protection of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
The Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu then have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
Onanuga stressed that the release, withholding or redaction of government records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability, describing the central issue before the court as whether the agencies’ reliance on statutory exemptions to withhold portions of the records is lawful.
He also dismissed recent commentary suggesting that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Karl von Batten are central figures in the litigation, stating that neither is a party to the case.
The Presidency said the proceedings remain under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
It therefore urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between verified developments in the court proceedings and political or partisan commentary surrounding the case.
“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’s clarification also recalled a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, which, according to the statement, informed him that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
Onanuga stressed that the release, withholding or redaction of government records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability, describing the central issue before the court as whether the agencies’ reliance on statutory exemptions to withhold portions of the records is lawful.
He also dismissed recent commentary suggesting that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Karl von Batten are central figures in the litigation, stating that neither is a party to the case.
The Presidency said the proceedings remain under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
It therefore urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between verified developments in the court proceedings and political or partisan commentary surrounding the case.
“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’s clarification also recalled a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, which, according to the statement, informed him that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
0 Comments