The Presidency says the ongoing litigation over records relating to President Bola Tinubu before a United States court is a civil dispute under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), not a criminal case against the President.
The Presidency made the clarification in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.
It said neither the United States District Court for the District of Columbia nor any US government agency had found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the matter.
According to the statement, the case followed FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
It said 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 later allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the agencies had invoked the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows government agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.
It said the defence was used to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
According to the statement, the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
It said the agencies were consequently removed from the proceedings, while the remaining aspects of the case involved the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA had, in compliance with court orders, released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
It said Greenspan had challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the records.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, had opposed the release of the unredacted records on several legal grounds.
It said some of the records were protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 3, including grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
It added that some documents were covered by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under Exemption 5.
According to the statement, other records were prepared for law-enforcement purposes and were covered by applicable FOIA exemptions.
It said some documents also contained information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
The Presidency added that other records could expose confidential sources or reveal law-enforcement techniques if released, bringing them under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
It said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said.
It stressed that the issue before the court was whether the agencies’ redactions and withholding of portions of the records complied with US law.
The Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan had until Sept. 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu.
It said the FBI, DEA and Tinubu had until Sept. 18 to respond.
The Presidency said the case remained before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who would determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.
It also dismissed recent comments by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten concerning the litigation, saying neither he nor his client, Atiku Abubakar, was a party to the case.
The Presidency urged the media and members of the public to distinguish between the court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the matter.
It reiterated that the litigation was a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA and did not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
