The Presidency has moved to clarify reports surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court.
In a statement issued on Thursday, September 3, 2026, Special Adviser to President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, stressed that the matter is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not constitute a criminal case against Tinubu.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga said.
The Presidency said the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
According to the statement, some of the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to commence Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also traced the matter to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
During the US court proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal mechanism that allows government agencies, under certain circumstances, to decline to confirm or deny the existence of particular records or investigations.
The Presidency explained that the defence is used to protect government personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques employed by US law enforcement agencies.
Following the invocation of the defence, the court 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, effectively removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case concern the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records in compliance with the court’s orders, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold the redacted portions and sought their release without the redactions.
However, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several FOIA exemptions.
The agencies argued that some of the documents were protected by law from public disclosure, including Grand Jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
They also cited attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, as well as exemptions covering documents prepared for law enforcement purposes.
Other exemptions were invoked on the grounds that releasing certain information could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or reveal confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which concerns personal privacy.
Onanuga said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, he added, have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency emphasised that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“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.
Onanuga also criticised recent public commentary by Karl Von Batten, saying he had inaccurately portrayed himself and his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, as central to 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,” Onanuga said.
He further stressed that the case is under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the outstanding issues based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” he said.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation surrounding the case.
