Follow Us on Google
The Presidency on Thursday moved to puncture growing speculation surrounding an ongoing case involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States court in Washington, D.C., insisting that the matter is neither a criminal trial nor evidence of any judicial finding of wrongdoing against the Nigerian leader.
In a detailed clarification on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Presidency, through Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga, said the case was strictly a civil dispute over access to government records and the legality of redactions made by United States law enforcement agencies.
It also disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, with portions withheld under exemptions provided by United States law.
“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.
Onanuga said recent reports and public commentary had created misleading impressions about the nature of the proceedings.
According to the Presidency, the controversy over the case comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, in a February 4, 2003, letter that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
The current case began in 2022 after Mr Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
The Presidency alleged that Greenspan had worked with Nigerian opposition figures, including Atiku Abubakar and journalist David Hundeyin.
After some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency explained that several US agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, under which an agency can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could compromise law enforcement operations, sources, techniques or personnel.
Based on that defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
The agencies were consequently removed from the proceedings, leaving issues involving the FBI and DEA for further consideration.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of documents but redacted portions of the records under exemptions permitted by US law.
The plaintiff challenged the decision to withhold the redacted portions and sought the release of the documents without the deletions.
However, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that some of the information sought was protected by law and could not be publicly disclosed.
The Presidency said the exemptions relied upon included protections for grand jury proceedings and information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
Other News
It added that other records were protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product rules, while some were prepared for law enforcement purposes.
The agencies also cited concerns over personal privacy, the protection of confidential sources and the possible exposure of law enforcement techniques and investigative methods.
Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Presidency stressed that the dispute over the release of the records should not be interpreted as proof of criminal liability.
“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.
The statement said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the submissions made by the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and the intervenor are expected to respond by September 18 to any further processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency also took a swipe at recent political commentary surrounding the case, insisting that the outcome would be determined by the court and not by politicians or public commentators.
It said the matter was “exclusively within the control” of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
“She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments,” the statement said.
The Presidency specifically dismissed claims that former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar or Karl von Batten had any formal role in the proceedings.
“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 maintained that the remaining issue before the court was narrow: whether the FBI and DEA were legally entitled to redact portions of the documents they had released.
“The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the statement added.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the Presidency said.
