The Presidency has moved to dispel mounting speculation over a US court case involving President Bola Tinubu, insisting that the proceedings in Washington, D.C., are a civil Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute and not a criminal trial against the Nigerian leader.

Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said in a detailed clarification on Thursday that the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns access to government records and the legality of redactions made by US law enforcement agencies.

According to the Presidency, there has been no criminal charge, trial or judicial finding of wrongdoing against Tinubu in the matter.

“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 disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions of the documents were withheld or redacted under exemptions contained in US law.

The clarification followed what Onanuga described as misleading reports and public commentary that had portrayed the proceedings as a criminal case involving the Nigerian President.

How the Case Began

The Presidency traced the current litigation to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

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.

Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate as an intervenor.

The Presidency said several US agencies initially relied on the “Glomar” response, a legal mechanism that permits an agency in certain circumstances to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records where doing so could compromise law enforcement interests.

The court consequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

Those agencies were subsequently removed from the proceedings, leaving disputes concerning the FBI and DEA.

FBI, DEA Release 399 Pages

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA later produced 399 pages of documents but redacted portions of the records under exemptions permitted by US law.

Greenspan challenged the redactions and asked the court to compel the agencies to release the documents without the withheld portions.

The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that some of the information was legally protected and could not be disclosed publicly.

The exemptions cited include protections for grand jury proceedings and information connected to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.

The agencies also cited attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product protection, law enforcement interests, personal privacy, confidential sources and the protection of investigative techniques and methods.

The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his privacy rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.

Presidency: Records Do Not Prove Criminal Liability

The Presidency stressed that the release, withholding or redaction of government records under FOIA should not be interpreted as evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

“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,” it said.

The statement also referred to a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, saying an FBI records check at the time found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

The Presidency further alleged that Greenspan had worked with Nigerian opposition figures, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and journalist David Hundeyin.

Court, Not Politicians, Will Decide — Presidency

The Presidency said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to submissions by the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor.

The FBI, DEA and Tinubu are expected to respond by September 18 to any further processes filed by the plaintiff.

It also rejected recent political commentary surrounding the case, insisting that the outcome would be determined by the court based on the evidence and applicable US law.

According to the Presidency, the matter is before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the outcome of the dispute.

“She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments,” the statement said.

The Presidency also dismissed claims that Atiku Abubakar or Karl von Batten had any formal role in the proceedings, saying neither was a party to the case.

It said the remaining dispute was narrowly focused on whether the FBI and DEA were legally entitled to redact portions of the records they had released.

“The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the statement added.

The Presidency urged the media and the public to separate the actual court proceedings from political commentary, stressing that the case would be resolved according to US law and the filings before the court.