The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing legal proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerning records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu are a civil dispute over access to government documents and do not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian President.
The clarification followed what the Presidency described as “speculative reports” surrounding Civil Action No. 23-1816, instituted in 2023 under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency stressed that the court had neither charged nor convicted Tinubu of any criminal offence.
According to the statement, the case originated in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
Following the agencies’ refusal to release some records or confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced the civil action before the US District Court in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency explained that some of the 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 responsive records exist where doing so could implicate protected law-enforcement information.
On the strength of the defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The statement said the remaining aspects of the litigation concern records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It disclosed that the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, had released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan subsequently challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the documents.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the demand for the unredacted documents, citing several statutory exemptions.
These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain court orders under FOIA Exemption 3; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under Exemption 5; law-enforcement records; personal privacy protections under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and provisions protecting confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
It added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
The Presidency further noted that the litigation remains ongoing, with the plaintiff expected to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes by September 11, 2026, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18 to respond.
It emphasised that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the Presidency said.
The statement also rejected recent public commentary suggesting that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his associate, Karl von Batten, are central parties to the proceedings, stressing that neither is a party to the case.
According to the Presidency, the outcome rests with 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 urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and political 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 maintained that the outstanding issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful under applicable US law.
