Tinubu not on trial in US, Presidency insists

• Says case only dispute over FBI, DEA records

From Juliana Taiwo-Obalonye, Abuja

The Presidency, yesterday, dismissed claims that President Bola Tinubu is facing a criminal trial in the United States, saying the ongoing Washington court case is strictly a civil dispute over access to records held by American law enforcement agencies.

It said the litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia neither constituted a criminal charge against Tinubu nor represented any judicial finding of wrongdoing.

Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, who clarified the controversy surrounding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had released 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US 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.”

Onanuga said recent reports and public commentary had created misleading impressions about the proceedings.

He recalled that 23 years ago, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector-General of Police, 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 Lagos State governor.

The current litigation began after Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies in 2022 seeking records relating to Tinubu.

The Presidency alleged that Greenspan had worked with Nigerian opposition figures, including former vice president, Atiku Abubakar and journalist, David Hundeyin.

After some agencies withheld 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 as an intervenor

According to the Presidency, several US agencies invoked the “Glomar defence,” which permits an agency to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where disclosure could compromise law enforcement operations, sources, techniques or personnel.

The court consequently 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, leaving issues involving the FBI and DEA for further consideration.

The FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages but redacted portions under exemptions permitted by US law.

Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought release of the documents without the deletions, while the agencies, through the US Department of Justice, maintained that some of the information was legally protected.

The Presidency said the exemptions covered grand jury proceedings, information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices, attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protections.

Others included personal privacy, protection of confidential sources and prevention of the exposure of law enforcement techniques and investigative methods.

Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, also asserted rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

“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,” the Presidency said.

Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to respond to submissions by the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and intervenor are expected to respond by September 18 to any further processes filed by the plaintiff.

The Presidency said Judge Beryl A. Howell would determine the matter on the evidence, applicable law and arguments before the court.

It also dismissed suggestions that Atiku 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.

The Presidency maintained that the outstanding issue was whether the FBI and DEA were legally entitled to redact portions of the records already released.

Meanwhile, Tinubu has welcomed the planned October 7 launch of the African Credit Rating Agency (AfCRA), saying it would advance Africa’s campaign for fairer assessment of its economies.

“Africa is not asking for favourable ratings. We are asking for fair ratings, grounded in our fundamentals and in the reforms our economies are actually carrying out,” he said.

Tinubu, however, said AfCRA must earn the confidence of international investors through independence and rigorous assessment.

“AfCRA must now earn the confidence of global capital. That confidence will rest on its independence and the rigour of its work,” he said.