The Presidency has clarified that an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a statement issued by Mr. Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Presidency said the court has not found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
According to the statement, the matter stems from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Mr. Aaron Greenspan to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court in 2023. The court later permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency noted that the case comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003 to then Inspector General of Police Mr. Tafa Balogun, informed that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
During the proceedings, U.S. law enforcement agencies invoked the “Glomar defence” — a standard position where an agency is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of records, used to protect personnel, techniques and sources.
Based on that, the District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the IRS, removing them from the proceedings. The claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration were left for further consideration.
In compliance with court orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by U.S. law. The plaintiff challenged those redactions.
The FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, cited several FOIA exemptions for the redactions, including:
1. Exemption 3 – Information protected by law, such as Grand Jury proceedings and Pen Register Act materials
2. Exemption 5 – Attorney-work product, attorney-client privilege, and documents prepared for law enforcement purposes
3. Exemptions 6 and 7(C) – Information that could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
4. Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) – Information that could reveal confidential sources or law enforcement techniques.
President Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
The Presidency stated that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026 to file any opposition and reply, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026 to respond.
“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 statement said.
The Presidency urged the media and public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation, noting that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court.
It added that recent public commentary by Mr. Karl von Batten inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings, stating that neither is a party to 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 FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the statement concluded.
